Defence SA, $20,249,000

Membership:

Mr Brown substituted for Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Price, Chief Executive, Defence SA.

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

Mr R. Barnett, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Defence SA.

The CHAIR: Welcome back everybody. The Premier is appearing and the portfolio we are examining between now and 12.30pm is Defence SA. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Before I call on the Premier, I have been instructed that Hansard is having some difficulty hearing all the questions and answers, so I remind all members to continue to speak into the microphone. Premier, please introduce your advisers and make a statement if you wish.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. I have great pleasure in introducing to the committee Richard Price, Chief Executive, Defence SA, and Rob Barnett, Executive Director of Corporate Services. I indicate to the committee that there will not be any opening comments.

The CHAIR: Are there any questions for the Premier? The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Regarding Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 140 and Defence SA's aim to support the commonwealth strategic defence industry through local industry participation and the budget line on pages 143 and 144, what resources are allocated towards monitoring the impact of the Future Submarine program on the local defence industry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what you mean about what resources are involved in monitoring. Are you envisaging that there is a unit set up to see what current increases in work there is? I am not quite sure where you are heading.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Clearly the Future Submarine program is an extraordinary opportunity for the state, and I guess I am trying to get a sense of what efforts are being undertaken within government, presumably within Defence SA, to actually assess how that is progressing; that is, how is local industry going when it comes to the benefits of the submarine program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This area of Defence SA is headed up by David Eyre, who is the director of maritime. I think the leader is correct in asserting that this is an incredible opportunity for our state. The Strategic Partnering Agreement was signed between the commonwealth and the Naval Group earlier this year. In fact, it was a great honour to be present when it was being signed; in fact, the French Armed Forces minister, Florence Parly, flew in from France for that signing.

It is still early days. The build-up that the Naval Group has in South Australia is still very much in its infancy, but there are huge opportunities. The areas that we are specifically interested in here in South Australia are around skills and also around making sure that we have the right companies investing here in South Australia who might also participate. We have a large number of SMEs in South Australia and we also have some of the very significant primes. We do not have as many middle-market companies that exist in the supply chain for submarines that might exist in other parts of the world and this is something that we are trying to address.

We do have resources not only here in South Australia but, importantly, also in Europe—probably only in Europe for a few more days, as it turns out, because our resource there is based in England, which I understand is exiting Europe as of the end of October. Currently, our person dedicated to this project is a gentleman by the name of John Rees. He is based in the UK but he also services France.

Mr Rees accompanied me on my visit to Cherbourg last week for the launch of the first of the Barracuda class. He is really well informed about the supply chain that exists for Barracuda, which is not identical but a similar submarine to the one that is being contracted with the Naval Group in Australia. Work is being done here in Australia and work is being done in Europe to make sure that we have the right investors and the right skills in place to maximise the opportunity for our state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I thank the Premier for that summary, but I am genuinely interested to find out whether there is any specific allocation of resources within Defence SA, whether as a unit or whatever it might be, to monitor how this is going?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I do not know what you mean by monitoring. In terms of whether we have a methodology that is going to go to companies asking them what they are contributing to the project so far, I am not aware of anything in that line at the moment. We are just on the front foot. Last week, when I was in London, I hosted a half-day workshop, which was held at Australia House, where we worked with the Society of Maritime Industries in the UK to provide a briefing on the opportunity that exists.

I think it is too early to be able to report, but if there are some statistics on what contribution there has been to date I am happy to provide them after this committee. But it is still very early in the phase for the submarine program. Of course, there are two programs that precede that. Obviously, we are currently underway with offshore patrol vessels down at Osborne, which is a project being delivered by Luerssen.

We will get the first two of 12 offshore patrol vessels being built here in South Australia and thereafter, of course, we will be producing nine frigates here in South Australia. That project will be delivered by BAE. There is work right across the board in maritime: offshore patrol vessels, frigates and ultimately the Future Submarines. That work will last for decades.

I think it is also important to report to the committee, though, that there is plenty of work even beyond the maritime projects. Edinburgh is now one of two superbases in Australia. There is a huge amount of work going on in and around Edinburgh and Mawson Lakes. There is plenty of work that we do here in South Australia with regard to system integration, with regard to electronic work warfare, with regard to surveillance and with regard to cyber. The defence industry and opportunity in South Australia is absolutely immense.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You and I both want that opportunity maximised, and as we move along with the project post the signing of the SPA presumably we need to have a method of examining our progress. Presumably we need to have a method to be able to establish whether or not the full utilisation of that opportunity is being realised around the defence industry, around jobs and around local content. I am trying to work out whether or not that is occurring. I accept that that might not necessarily be an immediate need right now, but I think it will be. I am trying to get a sense of whether or not there is going to be an effort to do that. I do not suspect that it would necessarily be easy to implement such an exercise—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The commonwealth has requirements in terms of industry participation, and the Australian content is envisaged in their planning. I am more than happy to ask the chief executive to provide more detail if you think that I am in some way being evasive.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, I am actually not accusing you of being evasive; I am not doing that.

Mr PRICE: Perhaps to give you some comfort, we actually are using the resources of David Eyre and John Rees, who have built comprehensive supply chain maps of the existing submarine so that we understand their existing suppliers and who we need to connect our industry with. That information is clearly very sensitive, so we do not publicise it, but that is basically how we are using it to target the connections between South Australian companies and the current incumbent suppliers. Once the contracts for those particular items of equipment start falling—none of those have really been awarded yet—we will be able to see where they are falling and whether they are coming to our suppliers or to somebody else's.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does the Premier have an insight into the time line of what the tenders and expressions of interest will be in terms of the supply of the Future Submarine program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not have that information. That is something that obviously the Naval Group will be developing at the moment. As I said, it is early days. The interaction with the Naval Group and Defence SA, and even with my office, is extraordinarily good. They have executives in Australia from France on a very regular basis. When we have approached them, suggesting that there might be opportunities for a certain company that might have presented themselves to us, they immediately follow it up.

I think that there are going to be extraordinary opportunities for South Australian companies. I also think that there will be extraordinary opportunities for foreign direct investment into the defence industry in South Australia. I do not think that we are going to be in a position for South Australian companies to supply the full input into the Future Submarines. I think the best opportunity for us, during this, is to try to work with like-minded companies from overseas to join in a strategic alliance or merger, or even potentially an acquisition, into the supply chain for submarines.

I believe that there is quite a sophisticated operation within Defence SA, both here and, as I said, based in Europe, to maximise those opportunities. We have already seen, with the establishment of the Defence Landing Pad at Lot Fourteen, companies that have been in, have gone through that program and made decisions to open facilities here in South Australia. This was a program that was launched at Euronaval in October in Paris last year, and we have already had success with it. I personally believe that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to the potential for using the Landing Pad to look at bringing those potential investors and partners into South Australia.

In addition to what we are offering with the Landing Pad here in Adelaide, we offer a version of it in Europe, where prospective companies looking at the South Australian market can either go into our offices in Australia House or dial in via Skype to meet with a number of advisers to get briefings on banking, legal, human resources and accounting and tax advice to help inform whether they see that there is an opportunity for coming to the Landing Pad in South Australia.

As I was saying, at the function I was at last week there would have been probably 50 or 60 people who turned up vitally interested in the exciting opportunities. Many of these companies are not only seeing the opportunity for them within our current Australian maritime programs but are also looking at using South Australia as a potential base for regional operations for their organisation. This will only help to strengthen the defence industry in our state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does Defence SA provide some sort of report or regular feedback to you, Premier, or to your office on where we are at in terms of time lines and the value of supply contracts for equipment on the Future Subs program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have very regular contact with Defence SA, with the chief executive and other key members. I am not sure that there is a reporting mechanism for contracts to date, but I will make inquiries whether that has been put in place or whether that could be put in place. I am absolutely satisfied that the work is being done now to ensure that those future contacts will flow.

As you can imagine, both the Naval Group and BAE are still very much in the phase of trying to work out who is going to be in their supply chain. Keep in mind that some of those decisions are in fact not made by the Naval Group or BAE; they are actually made by Navy and the Australian government in regard to different systems that will exist on those platforms. They are still being determined.

I am convinced that all the pre-work is being done not only in the UK, as I have outlined, but here in Australia—opportunities and workshops where BAE bring executives out from the UK to Australia, where Naval Group bring people out from France to provide information to prospective companies that want to look at the supply chain.

Keep in mind that some of the people who will be contributing to these projects are companies outside maritime at the moment, sometimes potentially outside defence completely. They might be companies that have a major focus on mining, agriculture or construction, but they also have an opportunity to contribute into the supply chain.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Premier aware of any local procurement requirement that exists within the strategic partnership agreement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Am I aware of—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Any local procurement requirement that exists in the strategic partnership agreement between Naval and the commonwealth?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Strategic Partnering Agreement has not been published. We are not aware of any specific South Australian component in terms of industry requirement.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about Australian?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly, my understanding of the information that has been made public is that there is a methodology envisaged within that SPA that looks at how the agreement would go about looking at what capability we have in Australia versus capability that exists elsewhere and the decision-making process and how that works. I would probably need to get a further briefing. That is a commonwealth responsibility. It is one that we are obviously massively interested in here in South Australia, but we do not have visibility of the SPA itself. I am happy to make inquiries.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But you have not already?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have just outlined the work we are doing in South Australia. As I said, I am very satisfied with the work we are doing, but if you have information to suggest that we are not performing well, feel free to raise it. We are happy to learn from your great expertise in this area.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I guess my concern, and what I am seeking you to provide information to the state on, is this. We have this extraordinary opportunity that is underpinned contractually thus far through the strategic partnership agreement, which is a high-level document signed between the commonwealth and Naval, which I accept you are not a party to in a strict legal sense.

But you are a premier with a close relationship with the former defence minister and I would have thought that it was pretty elementary that you would have sought advice from minister Pyne at the time or from the commonwealth generally about what within the strategic partnership agreement ensures that Naval has an obligation for local jobs, as distinct from what Naval's objective might reasonably be about trying to achieve an economic return for the capital invested within it. That is what I am trying to establish.

I do not suggest for a moment, in the context of your remarks, that I have information that will enlighten you. What I am hoping is that you enlighten us by giving a sense of confidence to this state that you are fighting every step of the way to maximise a level of local procurement. That is what I am asking.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that was just a statement. What is the question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is: have you spoken to the commonwealth about the level of local procurement requirement within the strategic partnership agreement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said to the committee, it is a confidential SPA, but I think that all the answers I have provided so far show that we are vitally interested in and focused on maximising the opportunities for South Australian firms, and that is what—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If you are vitally interested in it, tell us what confidence can the South Australian public have that the strategic partnership agreement maximises the local procurement requirement on the Naval Group?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be clear, the contracts have been let on three major platforms in South Australia. I know that you are interested in the submarines, but there are three major platforms. One is already underway and one is going to be underway earlier than the other one, so it is interesting that you are only focused on the submarines when there are plenty of other platforms. I am satisfied that the agency we have, Defence SA, is doing everything it possibly can to maximise South Australian content, and I have outlined to you—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How can you be satisfied—

The CHAIR: Leader, the Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was saying in the evidence that I have provided to the committee so far, our area of focus has been skills development, which we think is going to be vital to maximising the potential that we realise in South Australia, and the second one is making sure that we have the right level of investment in South Australia to provide into the supply chain.

We have obligations in that area, and if we fulfil those obligations then I think that we are going to be able to maximise job creation in our state. We cannot just rely on the fact that there may or may not be incorporated into the SPA some content requirement for South Australia. What we have to do is create every single opportunity and present that to the Naval Group, to BAE and to Luerssen, and quite frankly to a range of prime contractors to the Australian Defence Force, and present our credentials to them because it is a competitive environment.

These are major global companies and they want to deliver their projects on time and on budget. I think that they are both reasonable requirements or objectives, so the ball is in our court to do everything that we can. As I said, I am more than satisfied that Defence SA, its advisory board, its leadership and in fact its entire operation are doing precisely that. I am very happy to assist with that process when and where Defence SA think that I will add value, and we will continue to have a good working relationship with the commonwealth to make sure that we can maximise that work coming to South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have confidence in Defence SA. I am trying to understand how you can be satisfied that we are doing everything we can when (a) we do not have an existing monitoring process in place about how local procurement is going on the Future Submarines project, notwithstanding the fact that it is a long way out, and (b) you are not even aware of the local procurement requirements within the strategic partnership agreement. I find that difficult to understand.

I have no doubt that you are satisfied with Defence SA and that the people within it are working incredibly hard, but a separate proposition is about being satisfied that we are maximising the opportunity for the state going forward. Maybe in that context I will ask a specific question: has Defence SA monitored the level of local involvement in what I am advised is the definition and design phase of the Future Submarines program, a contract that I understand to be worth in excess of $600 million?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will have to get a briefing on that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you have not received a briefing on—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We need to keep in mind—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —a $600 million contract regarding the design phase of the Future Submarines and what that might mean for local work in South Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is that the contract you are referring to was envisaged after the signing of the Strategic Partnering Agreement. It is still in the early stages. I think we are at cross-purposes here. Of course there is a huge amount of work to be done, but we are not cutting steel on the subs at the moment, and we will not be for some years, so there are not contracts that are let.

There is no ability for Defence SA to be able to present to this committee, or to me and the government, with, 'Here are the 42 suppliers who have already been pre-approved by the Naval Group to supply these products at this contracted value.' I think we all appreciate that it is a big program, but the submarine has not been designed yet, let alone the procurement underway.

The contracts that have been let for the submarine program relate mainly to the establishment of the new submarine shed, which is going to be built down at Osborne. My understanding is that contract is many hundreds of millions of dollars and will create construction jobs in South Australia.

Clearly, there are going to be enormous opportunities for South Australia. I am happy to ask David Eyre from Defence SA to perhaps provide me with a briefing as to whether or not any contracts have specifically been let; if they have, I am happy to return that information to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Naturally, I do not receive the volume of advice that you do regarding these matters, but I understand that the Naval Group made public presentations to industry that its top 40 equipment suppliers were going to be selected in the first half of this year. Are you aware if that is the case?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that has not occurred yet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you understand if the Naval Group at one point did suggest that may be the case?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not have that information, but I would just remind the committee that the Strategic Partnering Agreement was quite significantly delayed. There were two final issues that did delay the filing of the Strategic Partnering Agreement. I am informed that this will not affect the overall time frame or cost of the project. It was really important that we get that right, but I think—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 'We' being the commonwealth and you having nothing to do with it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Say that again, sorry?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When you say 'we get that right', you mean 'we' being the commonwealth, in terms of the SPA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: 'We' as Australian citizens. We are all pretty interested in the outcome of this, so I think it is really important that we as a country get this right. It is essentially a relationship that will last for decades and decades. In fact, if you think about it, the captain of the final sub has not even been born yet. It is going to last for a long period of time. It is important to get it right, but I think that we are all aware that there were quite considerable delays in the finalisation of the SPA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to that top 40 exercise, since it has not been done, is Defence SA monitoring that process in the context of opportunity for local South Australian suppliers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely. I am happy to ask David Eyre to give a briefing to you on that—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would be grateful for that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and where that opportunity sits at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. Does the Premier, the government or Defence SA have a view about the level of local content that they hope will be part of the Future Submarines program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just ask that again, sorry.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you or does any agency within your government have a view, target or ambition for the amount of local content that will be part of the Future Submarines program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It depends on how you define 'local content'. Obviously, the headline figure at the moment is that the project will be $50 billion over its life, but that is broken up between both the original production and the sustainment. Even when you look at components of that, there are certain components that will just have to be imported, for example, combat systems. These are decisions that will be made by the commonwealth.

We do not have a capability in-country, an Australian company, to develop those, but we would like to see many of our local SMEs within the defence industry feeding into the supply chain of those primes. That is what has occurred in the past, especially with the air warfare destroyers. If you look at the air warfare destroyers contract, you could claim that there was certain South Australian content because the assembly was done in South Australia, but there was a fairly substantial procurement of some of the technology from other jurisdictions, so it is very difficult to put an exact number on it.

Obviously, from our perspective, everything we do is trying to maximise our content within that subs program. Some of that will be done within our SME sector. Some will be done within primes that expand their capability in South Australia. As I said, one area that we are definitely focusing on at the moment is further investment from interstate and overseas into the South Australian economy so that we can have input into that supply chain.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does Defence SA monitor employment levels generally at ASC's shipyard?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Monitor the—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does Defence SA monitor employment levels at the Osborne shipyard?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: ASC are happy to provide that information to Defence SA, the government or yourself on a regular basis. I am happy to get an exact number for you and provide it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does Defence SA proactively try to monitor them?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sure. They have a great working relationship with ASC.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has Defence SA provided you with advice on the number of jobs currently at ASC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not asked in recent weeks. Obviously, people are aware that a further reduction was announced last week at ASC of around 50 people. I think we all appreciate that the last 12 months, 18 months or maybe two years down at Osborne have been difficult as we move between the air warfare destroyers and the frigates program. The commonwealth has seen fit to try to alleviate some of that problem with the construction of the first two of the offshore patrol vessels, but that has not been sufficient to bridge that gap.

There was a hiatus in terms of federal government commissioning of ships of six years when the former Labor Party was in government federally. There was not a single ship commissioned in that six-year period, and that flows through to right about now. The Coalition, since it came to government six years ago, has commissioned 57 separate vessels, and so now the forward program is very, very clear.

More than just the program, I think the major change, which was envisaged within the Defence White Paper and the Industry Capability Plan, was that the defence industry going forward would be regarded as a strategic defence capability; this was not previously the case. So when that fundamental policy decision was changed and the defence industry was recognised as a defence industry capability, it then meant that we needed to develop parts of that defence industry here in-country, and a big part of that is, of course, the maritime program.

Now we have a continuous shipbuilding program. This provides certainty to companies that are involved in those programs, and they then respond by investing in terms of personnel development, in terms of infrastructure and in terms of other investments to ensure that they can respond to that continuous shipbuilding.

I do not envisage that we will return to some of the problems that we had with some of the previous platforms where early ships or vessels suffered from very large cost blowouts and time frame blowouts because there is real certainty, and we are not looking to massively ramp up, ramp down, ramp up, ramp down some of the human resources. Having said that, this is definitely a difficult period, but I think going forward that will be eliminated.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Does Defence SA know how many people are currently employed at ASC—I appreciate that you may need to take this on notice—and, if so, what that breakdown is from the AWD program in comparison to the full-cycle docking maintenance of Collins class or the Collins class sustainment work?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, we would know that. We are happy to find that out and provide that information as quickly as possible.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you; I appreciate your taking that on notice. Has Defence SA advised the Premier on the possibility of the commonwealth shifting Collins class sustainment work to the Henderson shipyard in WA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There has obviously been lots of speculation with regard to this for an extended period of time, but I am not in receipt of any information that suggests that that work will be moving to Western Australia. Obviously, the Navy regularly reviews these matters as to where the full-cycle docking will be done.

It is currently being done in South Australia, and I note that it is being done in South Australia extraordinarily cost effectively. There were some issues with regard to this that go back several years, but there have been very significant investments in improving the productivity of that full-cycle docking, which I think is really at a world best practice level here in South Australia at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think that speculation rightly has a number of people concerned about the prospect of that move. Has Defence SA, or for that matter any agency within government, allocated resources to lobbying against the transfer of that work to Western Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that Navy are looking at this matter and that this is something that is under active consideration this financial year. I have obviously spoken with the newly installed defence minister and defence industry minster on their most recent visit to South Australia.

There are some general concerns within the Defence Force as to whether or not South Australia will have the personnel capable of delivering on the massive program that is currently underway with offshore patrol vessels, Future Frigates and Future Submarines, as well as the full-cycle docking and the potential Life of Type Extension for the Collins class. I am of the opinion that we are. That is one of the reasons why in our first budget we put $200 million into skills development—so that we can make sure that we have the requisite technical skills in place.

Moreover, that is one of the reasons why, in the most recent negotiation with the federal government for a Designated Area Migration Agreement, we put occupations into that list that we believe were potential constraints to us fulfilling that massive increase in work. Nevertheless, this probably still remains a concern, and I think that there is still work we must be doing. I certainly will be playing my role in terms of those negotiations.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you provided political advocacy to the commonwealth, namely, through the Prime Minister, on retaining that work that is potentially up for movement to WA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Prime Minister and I speak on a very regular basis and he is more than aware of my position on this issue and, more broadly, on defence work. We want to position ourselves as the defence—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But have you advocated to him directly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely. Defence, space and cyber are three critical areas for us, and the Prime Minister is absolutely aware that we want to bring as much work in these areas as possible to South Australia. As I was saying, this is one of the reasons why we were the first state in Australia to sign the Skilling Australians agreement, which is more than $200 million—$100 million from state taxpayers and $100 million from federal taxpayers—towards this program. This is one of the areas that he was very happy to include in the Designated Area Migration Agreement.

As you would be more than aware, we have two DAMAs in South Australia: one covers regional South Australia, but the one that covers metropolitan Adelaide has a list of occupations, and that was developed with issues like maritime in mind after discussing it with the defence sector. I am convinced that we have the facilities in South Australia, we have the available space in South Australia and we have the skills in South Australia, and I am certainly continuing to advocate on that on a very regular basis.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has Defence SA allocated any resources or conducted any analysis of what the economic impact would be of a movement to Western Australia of the Collins class sustainment work?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly, it really all depends, if there was a move, on what it actually involved. Is it Life of Type Extension, which is work that we do not currently have, of course, where there is full-cycle docking, as well as what the timing would actually be? All those things are completely unknown, but I just do not envisage that this is something that is imminent. As I said, there is a negotiation to occur. The Australian Defence Force are looking at this issue. I am advised that they will be making a decision this current financial year, and we will be doing everything we can to keep as much work in South Australia for as long as possible.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you think that the Collins class sustainment work currently conducted in South Australia will stay in South Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is certainly what I am working towards. There are issues associated with that because the area in which that work is currently done is an area which will be required for the new submarine construction, so there will be issues associated with creating new facilities for the ongoing sustainment work.

This is one of the reasons we are putting a huge amount of effort into this skills development area—to make sure that we not only have the skills but also can demonstrate to the commonwealth that we will be able to have the requisite skills in place as they are required.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 144, under sub-program 1.1, at the bottom of page 144 there is a reference to the implementation of the Defence Industry Employment Program for Ex-Service Personnel. I understand, Premier, that you made an announcement on 26 November last year regarding the agreement between Defence SA and DTC. Why was Veterans SA not included in that process?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think Veterans SA has been included in that process. We have been keeping them informed along the way.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In the November 2018 announcement about the agreement between Defence SA and DTC, obviously Veterans SA was not part of that agreement. I am trying to understand why.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The funding came from within Defence SA, but it is not correct to characterise it that they were not informed. They have been—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I did not say not informed—involved.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, the money is actually coming not from Veterans SA but from Defence SA. I think that is the reason why.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What involvement did Veterans SA have prior to 1 July this year regarding this piece of work? What involvement does it have now post 1 July?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that they were involved in a working group that established the program. Of course, as you would be aware, they have now co-located with Defence SA, so I think this will strengthen relationships between Defence SA and Veterans SA even further.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On 5 July, you announced the portal or the website. Is that the official launch of the program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The official launch was on Thursday 4 July at the DTC annual dinner, which was an excellent occasion, with I think between 600 and 700 people at the Adelaide Convention Centre. It seems to be getting larger and larger each year—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was there, yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am surprised, then, that you did not recognise my wonderful speech and launch of the portal. What were you doing, sleeping or drinking or something?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Neither. I was having water, to be specific—but, yes, your address was inspirational.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I know you announced that on the night, but I am trying to understand if that is when it was launched. Was that when the program was launched?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. My understanding is that the portal is now up and running. I think there are eight or 10 companies that are key, signed-up employers to the program already. We are going to have a further launch, which will be more of a public to-the-veterans launch, but at the moment we are populating that portal, that website, with opportunities that exist.

There are great opportunities in this area, and I am not sure this is something that has been envisaged previously. I know that we have kept the commonwealth informed—Darren Chester, Minister for Veterans Affairs, and also Linda Reynolds, Minister for Defence, and Melissa Price, the Minister for Defence Industry—regarding what we are doing here. We think there is a great opportunity to take the serving men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are looking to leave their service and assist, in any way we can, in the transition of these men and women into the defence industry.

There is no doubt that there is a massive increased requirement for personnel in the defence industry. One of the things we know about people who have served in the Defence Force is that they have high-level skills that have been developed over a long period of time. They understand the defence industry better than most people across the overall population. Importantly, they have security clearances in place that could potentially be transitioned directly to defence industry, which would be another advantage of this cohort.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, were concerns raised by Veterans SA regarding the planned launch of this program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot recall anything specific directly to me, no.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: As the minister responsible for the various agencies that would have a connection to this program, were you made aware of any concerns that Veterans SA had with any of the actions of other agencies and the budget impact of any changes to the proposed program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Are we still talking about the employment program?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not recall any specific representation regarding concerns for the employment program. It is a pilot. As I said, it is not something that is being done elsewhere. We will learn from it. It is probably taking a little bit longer to get up and running than originally envisaged, but I am still convinced that this is an important program to put in place.

I should emphasise that this is not a program that would be limited to people who are currently only serving members of the Australian Defence Force, but it will be veterans who would also be able to access this service, which would be good. It is quite possible that this type of program could be extended to other employment sectors beyond defence industry, but there is an obvious logic with regard to the defence industry in the first instance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there are concerns that relate to the focus of the employment program being too much on defence industry jobs, as distinct from jobs that might exist outside the defence industry. Do you think that is a problem within the current program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I might have just answered that in the previous answer. As I said, I think there are opportunities beyond the defence industry, but there are very obvious defence industry opportunities, so I think that was a good and logical place to start. Certainly, I will be doing everything I can to find veterans worthwhile employment post their service. We certainly value their service to the country and we want to do everything we can to make sure that they have fulfilling employment and lives post their service.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is DTC best placed to be able to exploit those opportunities outside the defence industry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would not think so. The program that we are currently operating, which is funded by Defence SA, which is administered by DTC, is specific to the defence industry, but it does not preclude us from looking at other opportunities down the track with other sectors.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But why are you not doing that now?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I have answered that: this is a pilot. It is a first that exists.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I accept that. How many jobs are currently online or available through the program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure. I am happy to find out and come back to you. As I said, I think there are eight to 10 companies that have decided to be the foundation program partners. We want to lift that number. We want to get jobs placed onto the site and we want to engage the veterans community and ADF members as soon as possible. I think that there is a launch more broadly at the end of this year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has there been any engagement between Defence SA and the New South Wales government to work in collaboration on the employment program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I am not aware. I am advised that the chief executive is not aware.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, is there any source of conflict between Defence SA and DTC regarding the program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Any source of—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Conflict.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I think that DTC is a membership-based organisation. It is extraordinarily good at what it does. It has a huge number of members, and they are a logical partner for us for this program. The success of this program is really going to hinge on whether companies in South Australia provide those opportunities. I have not received any information to suggest that they will not be on board.

I must say that since the launch on 4 July we have been happy with the response and the feedback we have received from the industry. However, I do not want to overspruik this just yet. It is early days, it is a pilot, it is not something we have done previously. We have committed resources to it, and I am happy to report back on progress as that happens.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Premier aware that there are email interactions between DTC and Defence SA referring to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Would the Premier like to take the opportunity to seek advice on that from his officials?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If you have something to outline to the committee, then you should feel free to do so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There are FOI documents relating to the funding of the program going back to April this year, documents released some time ago. I am happy to refer specifically to them. For instance, on 2 April there is an email from the then CE of DTC to Mr Richard Price advising that his letter is acknowledged, as well as the direction to stop work on the program. I would like to know the context of those instructions. She goes on to say in this email:

I have advised all subcontractors to stop work effective immediately. This is very disappointing. I am happy to have a conversation before I formally respond…

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It seems to me that you are in receipt of all that correspondence, so I am not sure what your question is. From my perspective, that relates to correspondence that occurred some time ago.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In April this year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know whether you have a watch, but it looks like we are in July now. We had a launch of this program—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, do not be flippant. I am trying to ask legitimate questions.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, I am trying to answer. I am answering the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You were referring to my watch. That is not an answer to the question. I am trying to ask—

The CHAIR: Leader, you have asked your question and the Premier is now answering it. We have just 2½ minutes left in this session. Premier.

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier has forgotten—it is habitual. I am asking about the correspondence between Mr Price and the CEO of DTC referring to stopping work on the employment program. There is another email here from Mr Price asking if it is inappropriate and unprofessional to personalise an issue on this matter. I get the sense that the relationship between DTC and Defence SA on this specific issue has been a little problematic. If that is the case, I am surprised that the Premier has not been advised of it, considering that he is the responsible minister.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am sure it does not surprise the committee that I am not privy to all correspondence that exists within all my agencies' departmental staff and within any related sectors, but what I can advise the committee is that this is an excellent program and—despite the correspondence that the Leader of the Opposition might be referring to, which dates back several months—there was a very successful launch of this program on 4 July at the DTC annual dinner.

DTC have certainly conveyed to me their delight with the program they are offering. They see it as a benefit to their members. I see it as a benefit to the overall state by providing valuable employment to our veterans. As the Minister for Veterans Affairs, I am very pleased about this. I am also very pleased because it provides additional capability to our defence industry. From my perspective, improving the capability and capacity of defence industry personnel in South Australia, an area that we know is going to be under strain, is a massive win for the state, and we are looking at every opportunity to expand that capacity and capability. This is one such area.

As I have conveyed to the committee, it is an area which is a pilot, but I am satisfied that the launch has occurred and we will have success with it. I am happy to provide further updates to this committee down the track.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Mr Price wrote to the CEO of DTC in April this year and at the end of his correspondence he states:

We understand that you have directly approached the Premier's office to arrange a launch event. However, until we have resolved these issues—

which he has outlined above—

to our satisfaction, I will not be recommending to the Premier that this event proceeds.

Were those issues addressed and did the Premier receive advice from Mr Price regarding his launch of the event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The advice that I received was that we should proceed with the launch because all issues had been resolved. I am delighted to again update the house that that launch took place on Thursday 4 July.

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

Membership:

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

Hon. L.W.K. Bignell substituted for Mr Brown.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Ms N. Saunders, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

The CHAIR: Premier, you will be changing advisers because the next portfolio open in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is in relation to Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. Premier, I invite you to introduce your advisers for this session, please.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the committee this afternoon Nerida Saunders, the Executive Director of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division. I reintroduce Steve Woolhouse, the Executive Director, Communities and Corporate. I think lurking somewhere behind me is the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Jim McDowell.

The CHAIR: Premier, do you wish to make a statement?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir.

The CHAIR: Unless the leader wants to make a statement, I will invite questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank Nerida for being here and the other advisers as well. Premier, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 24, the first paragraph:

Empower Aboriginal people to have a stronger voice in decision making across…governance arrangements.

Your budget documents use some interesting terminology regarding 'voice' and 'empower'. If this is important to the Premier, why did he scrap the treaty process as one of his first acts as the relevant minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think we can put those two things together. A voice to parliament I do not think we can say is represented by treaty. I think there are other methodologies that we can have as a voice to the government and a voice, ultimately, to parliament. We have already canvassed the issues with regard to the treaty process, but I am happy to go over them again if you would like me to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would like the Premier to explain why he decided to scrap the treaty process when, for instance, federal minister Ken Wyatt recently said:

… with respect to Treaty, it's important that states and territory jurisdictions take the lead. When you consider the constitution, they are better placed to undertake that work…. Treaty models are evolving with work undertaken by the Victorian and Northern Territory governments which address the aspirations of Indigenous Australians in those jurisdictions, and it's important that it resides and sits there.

I would like to know whether or not you are aware of those comments. Do you support your federal Liberal colleague and, if you are aware of those comments, will that potentially result in you changing your position of scrapping the treaty process?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We made a decision not to continue with further treaties in South Australia. We made that clear to the people of South Australia before the election. We of course have continued to implement the Buthera Agreement, signed by the previous government in the dying days of that administration. All the information that I have received is that that is progressing well. Certainly, from our perspective, the government is fully engaged with that process. There will be things that we learn from the Buthera Agreement that we can directly pass on to other nations here in South Australia, and when that is obvious, that is what we will be doing.

Considerable resources are allocated to this process. We are taking it extraordinarily seriously. From my perspective, all of the feedback that I have received from the Narungga Nation and other people within that community is that they have been satisfied with the government's commitment to the full implementation of the Buthera Agreement.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the Premier believes that is important and constructive, why would the Premier have scrapped the treaty process for the rest of the state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For starters, I was not convinced that we had the model right, in terms of engagement. I do not want to specifically canvas it here, but there were and there remain people within that nation who are not supportive of the Buthera Agreement. I think it was a rushed process. It did not produce an optimal outcome.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But you were just singing its praises.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are doing everything we can to get that process back on track, but it is the subject of quite a lot of stress within that community. If the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of that, I am happy to provide a briefing to him on that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would welcome that briefing, thank you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Any time. With the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan that we published in December last year, one of the 32 action items on that plan was to develop a new model for engagement. That is something that the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas, has been working on and we hope to be able to finalise that certainly within the time frames that are provided under the action plan.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I want to stick to this theme of treaty. You referred in your previous response to the importance and value of the Buthera Agreement, but you do not think treaty is the best way forward. If that process with the Narungga Nation is seen to be beneficial, is it possible that the Premier will reconsider his position on the treaty process, or has the Premier made a policy decision and, even in the light of evidence or representations from Aboriginal communities and indeed a federal minister, is it the case that, in order to save face, the Premier will not reconsider the treaty decision that he took earlier in the term?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not had an opportunity to meet with minister Ken Wyatt since he has assumed that role. I certainly congratulate him on taking that role. We had a really good working relationship with him in his previous portfolio. We are really looking forward to working with him in this area, and I hope to be able to catch up with him later this month or early next month.

This is a critical area. It is one of the reasons why I took this portfolio myself. It is one of the reasons why we returned Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation to the Premier's department, as the central agency. It is one of the reasons why we developed a whole-of-government action plan. I am very proud that we are taking a whole-of-government approach to Aboriginal affairs. It is a complex area of public policy. It is not an easy area of public policy, but it is one that is extraordinarily important and one that we have to get right.

As I said, one of the items that we have envisaged in our action plan is the development of a new model for engagement in South Australia. I look forward to receiving the final recommendations from the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. I have been very happy with the level of engagement he has undertaken right across South Australia in the development of the model that he wants to present to us. I am very happy to update the parliament once I receive that advice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you received any correspondence from Aboriginal people, or their representatives, asking for the treaty process to be recommenced?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am very aware that there are different views right across South Australia with regard to this issue. Some people are very passionate about treaty. Some people want a whole-of-state treaty, some people want a whole-of-nation treaty, some people want treaties between individual nations and states or individual nations and the commonwealth. Some people do not see it as a priority.

There are very disparate views and I take my responsibilities in this portfolio very seriously. I listen to all those views. At the moment, there are many priorities that this government has for Aboriginal affairs. We are genuinely implementing the Buthera Agreement. This is something in which the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Erma Ranieri, has a very big involvement. To the best of my knowledge, all chief executives are genuinely involved with how they can play their role in the Buthera Agreement and the full implementation of that agreement.

Ms BEDFORD: Premier, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 24 and 25. How many Aboriginal-specific positions are available across all of government at or above ASO8 classification?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will probably need to take that question on notice, but I should be able to get that fairly quickly for you. That is something we monitor on a regular basis, and it is monitored by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. There are a number of Aboriginal people who are employed in the Public Service, but many of them are at the lower levels within the Public Service. This is one of the reasons why, since coming to government, we have pushed ahead with a leadership program for Aboriginal members of the Public Service. I understand that is now in its second iteration.

This is an opportunity whereby people either self-nominate or are hand-selected by their chief executives and identified as people with potential. They participate in a program. It is not a three-hour workshop; it is a really well-constituted program. I remember speaking to some people who had been through the program and were genuinely saying that they got a lot out of it. I know there was a lot of interest from—I think it was the second cohort—participants who went through, and had that launch earlier this year.

It is still a bit early to say what success it has had in terms of advancement through the Public Service in South Australia, but this is something that I will certainly be monitoring very closely. I am happy to provide the member with an update once I have spoken to the commissioner.

Ms BEDFORD: That would be good. Following on from that, it is the second cohort now. How long do you think it will take to see some real improvement? This is through the Public Service, but more broadly in the community are you able to exert any pressure on similar sorts of programs taking place at corporate levels or beyond?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot think of anything more broadly at the moment, but I can say that one of the things we have asked the Industry Advocate to do is look at ways that Indigenous companies in South Australia can get better access to state government contracts. In a way, that will create employment in the private sector off the back of contracts that are in the public sector. This is something that Ian Nightingale has taken very seriously, to the level that he has come along and spoken to the senior management council in South Australia. I understand that members of the senior management council—the chief executives in South Australia—are taking this opportunity very seriously.

Ms BEDFORD: I have one last question on the same budget paper and line. What steps are being taken to close the gap in Indigenous superannuation where it relates to better uptake of superannuation by Indigenous people, reflecting that that community has a reduced life expectancy?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Super is controlled at the federal level. Obviously, we pay superannuation as taxpayers to public sector employees. I would like to take that question on notice with the other two questions and provide a comprehensive overview. If there is something I can contribute in terms of the super issue, I am more than happy to provide more information.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Going back to treaty, Premier, you referred to looking at the views of Aboriginal people when it comes to your decision to abandon a treaty. Are you aware of the work undertaken by Dr Thomas on consultation with Aboriginal people regarding treaty? It was probably the most comprehensive consultation that has been undertaken by the state government with Aboriginal people.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What do you understand that consultation to have shown?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Keep in mind that consultation was done prior to the government's rollout of their program. We now know what occurred with that program, so there has been further consultation. We formed a position that we would not change our pre-election position with regard to treaty. As I said, we very genuinely entered into the spirit as well as the letter and the financial obligations of the Buthera Agreement. Lessons we learned from that will be applied to other areas.

One of the areas that is difficult with regard to treaty in terms of the negotiation is the area of mandate. Who has the mandate to actually conduct the negotiations? This often is highly problematic within individual nations. Prior to forming our opinion, we spoke to the relevant personnel in New Zealand because they have very effective treaties in New Zealand; they have a small number. It is a different arrangement there. They have very well-defined longstanding organisations that conduct the negotiation and they have that mandate.

I am not somebody to in any way play political games with this issue. I think that all issues within Aboriginal Affairs need to have a degree of sensitivity and focus. We formed an opinion prior to the election. On coming to government, we have far more access to information than we had previously. To date, nothing that we have been presented with would change our position currently.

As I said, one of the 32 items on the action agenda was to ask the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement to look at this issue of what is the best practice engagement with Aboriginal communities in South Australia, and my understanding is that he is in the very final stages of that recommendation to government and that we should be receiving that fairly soon.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you believe that the Aboriginal people's opinions should inform whether or not we go down the treaty path as a state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. As I said in a previous answer, Dr Roger Thomas is conducting this work for us at the moment as part of the Aboriginal Action Plan and he has been speaking to different groups right across the state. My understanding is—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the overall majority of Aboriginal people support treaty in this state would you then change your position to have scrapped it because, to the best of my knowledge, the overall majority of Aboriginal people in that original consultation said, 'Yes, we believe treaty is a good idea.' The former government then pursued a process of treaty.

You have come to government and scrapped that process, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the Aboriginal people have changed their mind on the value of treaty, notwithstanding the challenges that may exist of their implementation. So, that being the case, would you be open minded to reversing your position?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Obviously we have a new federal minister, and I am looking forward to having a conversation with him. He has made his comments regarding treaty in recent days. We know that the commonwealth is looking to formalise its response with regard to a voice to parliament following the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I think that in this regard it is early days.

You identify the states that are taking action. I am more than happy to look and listen and seek some reports on what progress is being made. As I said, we are continuing with our implementation of the Buthera Agreement if there is a potential change to what we are doing here in South Australia. The most important thing though—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you make the decision to scrap the treaty process without that information at hand? You came to government. You would have had access to Dr Thomas's consultation. Who was advising you to scrap the treaty process? What Aboriginal people were telling you to scrap the treaty process in light of the fact that you had that information available to you?

The CHAIR: Leader, I might just remind you that you have the call at every opportunity, but I might ask you not to interrupt the Premier when he is answering your previous question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Very well, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am just trying to recall. Certainly, on coming to government I had the opportunity to meet with the commissioner, Roger Thomas, who was the treaty commissioner at the time—he is now the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement here in South Australia—and his office, as I had access to him prior to the election. In his reports to me, I think that he very accurately outlined what he saw as the process that had been put in place under the previous government and the benefits of the Buthera Agreement and also some of the complexities around the negotiation.

I also had the opportunity to meet with people from the Narungga Nation and receive their feedback, and it is fair to say that that feedback was disparate. There were some people who thought the agreement was adequate, there were some people who thought that it was completely inadequate and there were some people who still to this day have very grave concerns regarding that agreement.

We are where we are with regard to that agreement. I do not make any comment regarding the adequacy of the Buthera Agreement because I know that these things are very difficult and complex negotiations. I appreciate from the previous government's perspective that they were looking to finalise that prior to the election, and that is fair enough. I think they took that course of action, which was logical, and we have an agreement now.

As I said, some people are not happy with that agreement, but I think that most of the people I am dealing with believe that we are genuinely implementing the letter and spirit of that agreement, and we certainly have continued the funding as per the agreement that was signed by the previous government.

The CHAIR: For the committee's information, we will break for lunch at 1.30.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate the Premier's reiteration of his position in regard to the Buthera Agreement. What I would like to understand—because that information and that explanation, which I think are justified and warranted—is the inconsistency between that position and the decision to stop treaty or scrap treaty everywhere else.

If the Premier is of the view that decisions around treaty going forward should be informed by Aboriginal people, if the majority of Aboriginal people believe treaty to be a good thing and the Buthera Agreement enjoys support by this government, why then the decision to scrap treaty? My specific question, if you want me to drill it down, is: what Aboriginal people advised you in favour of scrapping the treaty process? What Aboriginal people did you engage with prior to making that decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have answered that several different ways already. I think it will probably be something that does have a time. I do not think it is resolved yet who that will be between. As I said, there are some people who believe that we should have one treaty for the nation. I note that Ken Wyatt does not think that at the moment. I know that there were very disparate views with regard to even a state-based treaty, whether the states were the logical jurisdiction to sign that agreement and whether or not it should be statewide or individual nations.

The previous government formed an opinion; I respect that. We are implementing that process at the moment. We believe that there are some fundamental building blocks that need to be put into place as soon as possible in terms of a more robust model for Aboriginal engagement in South Australia. Perhaps if they were in place the treaty process the previous government embarked upon would have been more successful.

Currently, in South Australia we have the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council (SAAAC). I have very fulsome engagement with this organisation. In fact, the SAAAC has met now twice with cabinet. As you would be more than aware, leader, very few organisations ever come to cabinet. We feel this is very significant, where the SAAAC and the South Australian government cabinet can come together on a regular basis to very genuinely work through how we can improve outcomes in South Australia.

Certainly, in our first two meetings we had a good agenda. The first one was mainly focused on the Aboriginal action plan, and in the second one we were very pleased that the SAAAC came to us and said, 'Look, these are the specific areas that we would like to focus on for this meeting.' These meetings will continue into the future, but we are also, as I said, in the midst of finalising a new engagement model for the state going forward. Again, like many things in Aboriginal affairs, there are disparate views on exactly how that should look, who the representatives would be, and whether they would be appointed or whether they would be elected.

Since we came to government, the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council has had its term extended twice now, if not three times, until June next year, and this is exactly the same Aboriginal advisory council personnel that the previous government put in place. We have not changed the personnel; we have not augmented the personnel. We have kept the people who were put in place by the previous Labor government, and we continue to work with them and take their advice very seriously.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In light of the fact that you have retained the same personnel, has their advice changed? If their advice was in support of treaty and you take their advice seriously, why then abandon the treaty process? If the people are the same, the advice is the same, and you take their advice seriously, why then the change in decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We discussed these issues on coming into government and put forward a proposal regarding what we wanted to do going forward, and we have received support from the SAAAC since then. We asked them about the development of the action plan, and we specifically raised the issue that we did not believe we had time to waste to go out for a very long-winded consultation. We asked them to accept a shorter period for consultation where they were involved, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement was involved and state departments were involved to come up with an initial action plan.

We were very keen, in that action plan, to avoid motherhood statements. We really wanted it to be an action-oriented plan where there would be a number of items where we could say they were either achieved or not achieved within a two-year period rather than having long-range aspirations. There are already plenty of those: what we are lacking is progress towards them, so what we decided on was an action plan that we could determine, within time frames, yes or no.

My understanding is that on the most recent update we are on track in more than 30 of the 32 items. I think there might be one that is still outstanding—there you go, there are two that are outstanding I have just been informed, so I was pretty accurate there, and we will be able to take corrective action on those two. There is really good progress, and I would like to commend all my fellow members of cabinet. I have been super impressed by the way they have taken on their responsibilities in this area.

I can also say that one of the reasons we changed the arrangement with regard to Aboriginal affairs and brought it back into the central agency is that I genuinely believe it was always extraordinarily difficult for a minister to look after this portfolio because there is a limited amount of money that goes into Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. There are finite resources within the division itself, and most of the service delivery actually occurs in every other department: it occurs in Health, it occurs in Attorney-General's, it occurs in education, transport, police, and so on and so forth.

That is why rather than leaving one minister with the responsibility of trying to go out and, essentially, cudgel other ministers, who have their own level of concerns in their portfolio areas to try to somehow deliver against their agenda, I thought it was much better practice to try to make it a whole-of-cabinet agenda. I know it is early days, but I think there are some really good green shoots that will support this as being the right approach.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Those gathered at Uluru in 2017 wrote, 'We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.' Do you think that is something worthy of pursuit?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly, this is something that the federal government is envisaging at the moment. I am certainly in support of as much interaction as possible. I really look forward to meeting with the minister in the coming weeks just to see what that process is. My understanding is that, going back probably more than a year now, there was a sort of cross-party working group put together to look to respond to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. With everything else that has been going on with the federal election, I think it would be good to get back to find out what is happening there.

With regard to the state parliament, I certainly believe that we need to have greater interaction with Aboriginal people in South Australia. I am not convinced that the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee is contributing as much now as was originally envisaged in the legislation. From time to time, we can look at the objects of those committees. Maybe there is an opportunity there to do something that will provide a greater level of input into our considerations here in this parliament.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will you support South Australian Labor's commitment for an SA voice to the South Australian parliament?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what your proposal is, but I am more than happy to hear it and my door is always open. If you have a specific proposal, then I would be more than happy to hear it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When people gathered at Uluru in 2017, they wrote:

…the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

What steps have you taken to investigate such a commission in South Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is a truth-telling commission?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Makarrata commission, yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think we have taken any steps with regard to that. Keep in mind that this was actually a statement made while the previous Labor government was in power. I am happy to see whether they provided a formal response and took action with regard to that statement, which was made while they were in government.

Mr HUGHES: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 12. Under Objective it states:

The department provides leadership across government policy development on Aboriginal community support, multicultural affairs and the arts.

A lot of emphasis has been put on the Aboriginal Action Plan by the government. Of the 32 items in that action plan, how many have been initiated by the current government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think it is a combination. I am certainly not one to throw out good programs that were put in place by the previous government. Sometimes we have just kept them exactly as they were by the previous government; sometimes we have augmented them and sometimes we have introduced our own. Quite frankly, I think this is an area where it is not about Labor or Liberal. I think if there is one area of government policy on which we should all be working together in a bipartisan way it is Aboriginal affairs, because I think it is actually one of the most, if not the most, complex areas of public policy.

I think both parties have had their highlights and lowlights in terms of administration in this area. I certainly recognise the previous government's efforts in this area. We are taking a different approach in some areas, but we are certainly not in any way, shape or form being ideological or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where we see programs that are working well, we are happy to continue them and then further reinvest in them.

Mr HUGHES: I acknowledge the importance of taking a bipartisan approach, especially in relation to Aboriginal affairs, but, given the importance that the government have put on the action plan—there are 32 items—maybe you could humour us by indicating which of the initiatives are Liberal Party initiatives. I acknowledge that there are a number of initiatives that are hybrid initiatives that were started under Labor that have possibly been built on by the current government, and there are other initiatives that were pure Labor initiatives, if you like. Of the initiatives that are in the action plan, how many have been as a result of actions by the current government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The action plan is the action plan. I do not have an ability, here at this committee, to go through it line by line to determine—and I do not know the purpose. I really fail to understand this line of questioning. I have already said that there are things that the previous government did that we acknowledged were good. We are not in any way, shape or form saying that we have all the answers.

The commitment I make to this committee today, and to the parliament more broadly, is that if people have suggestions on things that we could do that would improve the action plan, we are all ears. This is an area where we do not want to have a political contest. I certainly do not believe that I have the information to provide a comprehensive answer, nor do I think it would be useful anyway.

Mr HUGHES: Of the elements in the action plan, the various initiatives, how much federal funding has been received for those initiatives? If federal funding has been received, for which initiatives has it been received?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information with me, but obviously the federal government do have a role to play. Housing is an issue that comes immediately to mind, and it is incorporated into the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. I am happy for officers within AARD to look at that question. If they have something to add, I am happy for them to provide that directly to you.

Mr HUGHES: What was the level of consultation in relation to the action plan? I think it has been referred to that the people who were consulted within the Aboriginal community were essentially government-appointed Aboriginal people. SAAAC has been mentioned, and the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Was there any consultation with Aboriginal communities on a wider basis? If so, with whom, and which communities were consulted?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I am not quite sure of the reason for these questions. If you are asserting that the only people we consulted were government-appointed board members, I have not changed any of the board members since the previous government. They were actually Labor-appointed people who did most of the consultation.

I did acknowledge in one of my previous answers—I am not sure if you were here at the time—that we did go to the SAAAC. We were concerned that some people would say that there was not extensive consultation, but we put it to the SAAAC that we thought that there was a need for action, not more and more consultation. They agreed. They said, 'We have been very well consulted over a long period of time.'

I made the commitment that if, after the action plan was implemented, people said, 'There are other things that we would now like to add,' we would not have to wait until the end of a two-year period for them to be brought on. In the next six or 12 months, I think that we will find ourselves in a situation where some items will be completely delivered. So, if you like, they will come off, and it is quite possible that new items will go on.

We are not a government that says, 'We can only do things which are on our 32-point plan.' If there are other items—and there are plenty of them—where people come to us and say, 'We think that there are some other opportunities for advancement,' we are all ears. This is an area in which not only I am vitally interested but I am genuinely of the opinion that the cabinet, and the government more broadly, is vitally interested in this.

We see very strong support for the action plan from Senior Management Council. In fact, we could not have delivered it in the time frame without the very strong support of members of the Senior Management Council. If there are other items that community members or the SAAAC would like to add, or the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, in his discussions with members of the broader Aboriginal community of South Australia, would like to add, we are not eliminating any ideas in this area.

Neither are we saying that everything we have done is right. We are making best endeavours. Often you think something is going to work, but sometimes it does not. If that is the case, we are not going to double-down and be bloody-minded and stick to an issue because we said that we thought it was going to work; we will take corrective action.

Mr HUGHES: Given the importance of the action plan, and I acknowledge that it is a living process, if you like, and that over time it will evolve, would you acknowledge that it is important that there be wider consultation with the Aboriginal community and not just with the peak bodies that are in place?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, and that is why one of the items on the action agenda is to come up with a new model for that ongoing engagement. I think we are only weeks away now from the final report being received from Dr Thomas. He has had extensive consultation on the consultation. He has been out talking to people right across the state, and he is very good at it. I am advised that he is going to give me a report by the end of September/early October. He is doing final consultation on different models; that will be received before the end of the year and we will make that public.

Mr HUGHES: So different models of consultation with the broader Aboriginal community?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. As you guys would be aware, you were in government for 16 years, there are lots and lots of different representative groups within Aboriginal South Australia—sometimes even within an individual nation there are multiple levels of representation—so this is not an easy process. It is not like the election of a committee at the local basketball club. By the way, that often has its level of political processes. This is really quite a complicated area and we are considering all options, but it is fair to say that this is one area we do not want to rush and get wrong because the consequences of that I think will just further entrench some of the issues we have had in regard to an effective representation to government in the past.

Mr HUGHES: Time permitting, I might come back to the action plan, but I think it is important to raise some questions about remote Aboriginal housing. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 153, Program 1: Accountability for Public Sector Resources, highlights 2018-19, dot point 2. Have you met with minister Ken Wyatt since his appointment, or have you spoken to him by phone?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr HUGHES: Do you intend to do so in the near future?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know that you have only just come to the committee, but we have been in it for 45 minutes and I have actually canvassed this twice. I am happy to do it a third time. We congratulate Mr Ken Wyatt on his appointment. We enjoyed a good working relationship with him in his previous portfolios in relation to ageing. We have, I think, sought a meeting that we hope to have with him by the end of this month or early next month.

Mr HUGHES: In last year's estimates you told us that you had not met with minister Nigel Scullion. However, your colleague Michelle Lensink of the other place told her chamber that you actually had met all together with minister Scullion to discuss remote Aboriginal housing. Do you recall that meeting?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not remember the specific details, but I know that we did have various representations with the federal government in regard to their offer to us in terms of remote Indigenous housing. We were not happy with their initial offers to us; we felt they were unsatisfactory. My understanding is that a satisfactory agreement has now been reached. Not wanting to handball, but this is actually not something that we have dealt with in DPC. We were party to early negotiations, but this is something that would be better canvassed with the Minister for Human Services.

Mr HUGHES: So you are saying that you did not actually meet with the then minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think we did meet with him, but I did not conduct the negotiation for the remote Indigenous housing agreement. That was a different department. I think there was a meeting in Adelaide, which probably would go back to last year, but I just do not have the date of that meeting.

Mr HUGHES: Do you recall that at the meeting with minister Scullion before budget estimates last year that minister Scullion made a one-year offer of funding and you readily accepted this offer and the ongoing responsibility without future commonwealth investment; is that your recollection?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr HUGHES: What is your recollection?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, I have just outlined it to the committee, but I am happy to do it again. My recollection is that the commonwealth made an offer to the state, which we rejected. In fact, I do not think that there was any agreement until early this year. I think that what they were offering was not acceptable and, rather than just agree for the sake of agreeing with the commonwealth, we held out. I think we ended up with a much better deal than what was originally being pushed by the federal government.

Mr HUGHES: Given the agreements that are in place, how many new houses will be built and in which communities?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, this is a very reasonable question, but it is a reasonable question for the Minister for Human Services, not the Premier. I just do not have that information. It is not in my portfolio.

Mr HUGHES: Surely, given your portfolio area of Aboriginal affairs, and given the importance of remote housing and the real challenges that exist in communities such as on the APY lands, I would have thought you would be across it.

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

Mr HUGHES: How much has been budgeted for over the next decade when it comes to Aboriginal remote housing?

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

Mr HUGHES: Did the funding agreement that was entered into with the commonwealth fall well short of what other states were able to negotiate?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot be any clearer. I am not trying to dodge these questions on behalf of the government. It is just that I do not have any of that information. I am not party to that agreement. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is encouraging you to ask these questions. They are just not relevant to this committee.

The CHAIR: Member for Giles, when you were indicating your budget line you were actually referencing Treasury and Finance. We do not actually have that open at the moment. I understand that your questions are relevant to Aboriginal housing in particular, but I might ask that you come back to Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. The leader has a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 24 and specifically dot point 3 in reference to the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Premier, which minister is responsible for the administration of the Aboriginal Heritage Act?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am, as the Premier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many determinations have been made under that act since you came to government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information, but I am happy to determine it and get back to you.

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

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do have that information, which I am happy to provide to the committee now, if you would prefer it now.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That sounds great.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As you would be aware, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act I have the ability to determine approvals, authorisations and determinations. I am advised that one approval has been made. There have been 11 authorisations, and one determination was considered but rejected.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is that it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What happened with that determination?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That determination was related to the Leigh Creek coalfields area. It was a request by ATLA and it was refused.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you do that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In fact, that was something I delegated to the Treasurer. I am happy to provide further detail, but I am not sure that I have it here. I will just check.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you delegate it to the Treasurer when you are the responsible minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that ATLA requested for determination to the government which would prevent the Leigh Creek pilot to go ahead, citing that they thought there would be disturbance of the local heritage. An investigation was undertaken and the government formed the opinion that that was not going to be the case, and so the pilot was authorised to proceed.

I am advised that with regard to this issue different representative groups had disparate views. ATLA was of the view that this would form a disturbance; other groups were not of that opinion. Ultimately, the government formed the opinion that we would not be making a determination.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you delegate that determination to the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was a decision that I made at the time. I think I have delegated authority to the Treasurer on just two occasions. I do not think I have done anything recently.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why? You are the responsible minister. Why are you delegating to the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: From time to time, we form the opinion that another minister is in a better position to make that determination. In this case, that was the person I decided would do it. It is a difficult situation sometimes, where you have responsibility for economic growth and you have responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. My gut feeling at that time was that he was in a better position to make that decision.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are a premier who has taken on the responsibility of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, you feel as though you are conflicted in the administration of that act in the context of your pursuit of economic growth as Premier, so you then hand it to the Treasurer? Does he not have to take into account economic growth? Why is he better placed to make that balanced judgement call than the responsible minister themselves?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I formed the opinion that he would be better to make that decision in this particular instance.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why did you form that opinion?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the decision that I made.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But why?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But I am trying to understand the rationale. Did you make that decision just spontaneously, or did you think it through and then come to a view?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know you ran out of questions quite some time ago, but I have provided my—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You love that line, don't you? You keep saying it over and over again. I have dozens of questions here to ask you.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is getting a bit boring. Come up with something new, surely.

The CHAIR: Order! Leader, you have asked your question. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reality is that there are so many legitimate questions that could be asked for this portfolio. It is a portfolio that we should all be—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But this is the one I am asking you now: why did you make the decision? Why are you delegating that authority? What is the reason you formed that opinion?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sometimes if you ask it louder, you get a different answer. I do not know; that might be what has happened.

The CHAIR: To all committee members, we are down to the last 30 seconds so, Premier, do you have anything further to add to that answer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir.

The CHAIR: I will take one more question, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, how many Aboriginal jobs have been created within the public sector since you took office?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I took a question on that only a few minutes ago from the member for Florey. I have committed to getting that information to her and I am happy to provide it to you as well.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would like to be provided with a degree of specificity in regard to that exercise for the sake of my personal interest. When you undertake that work, can you please come back with figures in regard to SAPOL?

The CHAIR: I guess that is a supplementary question. The Premier has agreed to do that. Having reached the allotted time, we are going to break for lunch. The committee will reconvene at 2.30. The bells will ring for three minutes prior to that.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 14:30.

Membership:

Ms Stinson substituted for Mr Hughes.

Ms Luethen substituted for Mr Murray.

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 J. Layther, Director, Arts SA, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to committee A. We are this afternoon dealing with Arts SA for the first hour and Veterans SA for half an hour after that. We will have a break at 4 o'clock and, at 4.15, we will examine Multicultural SA for three-quarters of an hour. If the Premier has any new advisers here, I ask him to introduce them, please.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the committee this afternoon Jennifer Layther, who is our fabulous Director of Arts South Australia. I reintroduce to the committee Steven Woolhouse, the Executive Director of Communities and Corporate. Behind me is Mr Jim McDowell, Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to make an opening statement, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, thank you, sir.

The CHAIR: Leader, do you wish to make an opening statement? If not, I invite questions. The member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much, Premier and department executives as well. I will go firstly to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 30. Could you tell me how many unpaid attendances there were at the State Opera in 2017-18?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure that we report those. I can make an inquiry of the State Opera, if you like.

Ms STINSON: I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 30.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I see. In 2017-18, there were 9,000.

Ms STINSON: I was after unpaid attendances.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry. It was 1,200.

Ms STINSON: Is it 12,000?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No; 1,200.

Ms STINSON: The budget paper that I have has the State Opera unpaid attendances 2017-18 actual as—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There were a number of errors on that page. My understanding is that the Treasurer has already issued a correction to that page.

Ms STINSON: When was that issued?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have no idea.

Ms STINSON: This is estimates. It would be handy for the opposition to have the correct figures. If a correction has been issued, it certainly has not been brought to the attention of the opposition or the shadow minister for arts.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what the Treasurer's methodology is, but I can tell you now that it is 1,200. It is pretty obvious that it is a typo.

The CHAIR: It is quite obvious to me that that is a typographical error of some sort. Seek clarification by all means, but it is a mistake, by the looks of it.

Ms STINSON: Are there any other errors that the Premier would like to bring to the opposition's attention?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As you can see, in the way that page was originally presented, State Opera appears twice. It is the first reference that is correct, with that typographical error. It is 1,200 in place of whatever that number is. The one underneath it, which says State Opera, is actually the State Theatre Company.

Ms STINSON: Could you take us through that? Obviously, you are apprised of information that we in the opposition are not.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to do it now, but I do not want to chew up all your time, or I can just provide it to you.

Ms STINSON: Well, this is estimates, so I would like to be able to question you about the numbers. I have just been made aware that you have not provided the correct numbers in the official budget papers that are published online.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The online paper has been updated for some time; that is completely—

Ms STINSON: These papers I printed last night were not updated last night when I printed them.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Alright, so what is your question?

Ms STINSON: My question is: what are the true figures?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For the State Opera?

Ms STINSON: For the State Opera, for the State Theatre and for any other organisation that you have not disclosed the figures for.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not as though we have not disclosed the figures.

Ms STINSON: You have not disclosed them to the opposition. No-one has called our offices, no-one has made us aware whatsoever that there has been any change to the published figures of the state budget. How are we meant to ask questions about the budget in estimates if we are only now finding out that you have furnished us with the wrong figures on budget day?

The CHAIR: Maybe I could help find a way through this. It is quite obvious to me that 'unpaid attendances' for 2017-18 is a typographical error.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to accept that, sir, but—

The CHAIR: It is not a correct number, so if the Premier can at least ascertain what the correct figure is that should help, should it not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have just had a look, and the updated one is the one that is online at the moment. I do not know when the correction was made, but it certainly is online at the moment. I do not know whether you are looking at an old version, but I am happy to go through it now in trying to be as helpful as I can to the committee.

Ms STINSON: Thank you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For State Opera, paid seats of performances, the 2019-20 target is 19,000, the 2018-19 estimated result is 14,000, the 2018-19 target is 26,000, the actual in 2017-18 is 9,000 now, and then below that are the unpaid attendances. I will not keep reading them out, but for those four reporting periods that are on the page: 4,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 1,200.

Then for State Theatre, paid seats of performances, again using those same four columns working from left to right, the figures are 45,000, 40,450, 44,900 and 41,736. Unpaid attendances are 6,000, 5,740, 5,700 and 7,063.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair—

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, we have just had a look at the online version, and there has been a correction. On the particular figure that I mentioned before, the unpaid attendances now reads 1,200.

Ms STINSON: I accept that, sir, but, as I mentioned earlier, it is not a correction that was brought to the opposition's attention whatsoever, and certainly last night when I reviewed the papers as I had on budget day they were the same as the ones that were in the budget papers that were presented to the parliament on budget day.

I would have thought that, if these things do change and if something is presented to the parliament that is later determined to be incorrect, the opposition, who are obviously going to be asking questions about this in estimates, might be given at least the courtesy of the correct numbers before estimates. Did you have a point of order or shall I go on?

The CHAIR: Actually, member for Badcoe, that is for me to do. There is a point of order from the member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: For the benefit of all members of the estimates committee, I bring to your attention the fact that the online version that we are working from is updated and contains figures in a sensible format. What appears to be the subject of discussion is simply a matter of typographical presentation as opposed to a policy direction or matters of accountability.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I agree with you, and that is the point I have been making. In the printed version, member for Badcoe, it is quite obvious to the casual observer even that it is an incorrect figure. It is not even a real number. Can I suggest that we not waste too much time on this. We only have three-quarters of an hour.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to move on, sir. Premier, could you tell us what the attendance figures are for the Adelaide Festival Centre, as those do not appear to be published in the papers that were tabled in paper to the parliament on budget day.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I am more than happy to do that. In the 2019-20 target column, the figure for paid seats is 45,000 and the estimated result is 40,450.

Ms STINSON: I am sorry, could you start again?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, I am reading from the wrong line. For the Adelaide Festival Centre, the 2019-20 target is 850,000. The estimated result for 2018-19 is 980,000. The target for last financial year was 820,000 and the actual in 2017-18 was 823,270.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Premier, for the sake of completeness at least, could you tell me if the figure that I have in front of me for the SA Museum for the number of visitors is correct? You will find it in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 31.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Would you like me to read the numbers out?

Ms STINSON: I am happy to read you what I have in front of me if you would prefer.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have no preference.

Ms STINSON: The number I have in front of me for the number of visitors to the SA Museum in the 2017-18 actual is 82,067; is that what you have?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, 824,067.

Ms STINSON: So that is another error. Are there any other errors on that page, page 31, that have been subsequently corrected on the online version?

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

Ms STINSON: Are there any other errors in the arts and culture budget pages that we have not discussed in the last few minutes?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not that I am aware of, no. Mr Chairman, if I could make an apology to the committee for any inconvenience it has caused. I would have thought, though, at a very cursory glance, that any reader would have recognised immediately the errors. For example, State Opera appears three times with completely separate numbers, so it hardly should be a revelation to anybody today that there was an error in the published papers. I do not know when the online version was changed, but certainly anybody taking a look at that one page would know that there was a very obvious typographical error with the titles.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that, Premier.

Ms BEDFORD: I refer the Premier and minister for the arts to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 15, the shift of the History Trust out of Arts SA and into the Department for Education. How will that affect funding for the Centre of Democracy and would the Centre of Democracy be better placed attached to parliament rather than education?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I thank the member for Florey for her question. She could be quite right and maybe it should be attached to the parliament, but this is not an area that is administered under my jurisdiction anymore. I think it was transferred to the education department as of 1 September last year.

Ms BEDFORD: It was worth a try.

Ms STINSON: Premier, considering those errors that have been detected in the budget papers, do you think you have possibly cut too many staff from Arts SA if they are not able to get the budget papers right?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I am advised that the update was made on Friday 21 June and updated online. That is the advice I am just receiving, but please be aware that these figures are not figures that are done by Arts SA: they are figures that are done by Treasury, and from time to time errors are made. I do not think this is the first time there have been typographical errors in something that has been handed down. As I said, I apologise to the committee for any inconvenience, but I think the error is reasonably obvious.

Ms STINSON: I disagree.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: So you think there are three State Opera companies in South Australia?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: For the five years I was a minister we, as ministers, had to go through every line.

The CHAIR: The Premier has apologised and he has informed us that the online version was updated on 21 June. I think we will move to the next question, member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 29, program summary. What is the current headcount of employees in the arts and culture line of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For what period?

Ms STINSON: What is the current headcount as of this moment or as of the most recent information you have to hand?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that. What I have are the budget lines in front of me that say the estimated result in 2018-19 was 55 and that the budget for this year is 55.

Ms STINSON: Could you take that question on notice and get back to us later?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think it has changed.

Ms STINSON: The headcount was my question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Ms STINSON: In the budget papers it says 55, but I am asking for the headcount. Obviously some of those FTEs may be part-time or—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We can take that on notice. I would be more than happy to come back with the result.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. I would also be after the headcount as at 30 June 2018, if it is possible to take that on notice as well. Are you able take that on notice as well, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If we are able to provide a headcount on that date we will, but certainly the budget provides that the FTEs on that date were 81.7.

Ms STINSON: In last year's budget there was a breakdown of agencies that the FTEs were allocated to. Could you please list which agencies these FTEs are allocated to that are published in this year's budget, and how many FTEs are allocated to each agency?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you repeat the question, please?

Ms STINSON: In last year's budget papers there was a breakdown of the agencies that each of the FTEs were allocated to. Could you please list which agencies the FTEs are allocated to this year? That information is not in the budget papers this year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that is because last year we were mid a year making an allocation from Arts SA to other agencies, so they were people who were transferred to the education department and the Department for Innovation and Skills. That transfer has been made. We are not making a further transfer to those departments; that was made on 1 September last year. There is no such transfer on an ongoing basis. They are the employees; they were transferred, and they remain those other portfolio's employees.

Ms STINSON: I understand what you are saying there, but when I look at the table that was published last year it splits up the number of FTEs between the four different program areas. They are the State Library, public libraries and community info services, access to art, museum and heritage (which covers the Art Gallery of SA, the SA Museum, Carrick Hill, History SA and Artlab), and the fourth line is arts industry development.

I understand all those are still sitting with you—aside from History SA, and I know how many people are in History SA. I wonder if you could provide the same information that was provided in the budget papers last year, that is, a breakdown of those 55 FTEs across the program lines or, if you prefer, across agencies and programs.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have already dealt with the agency issue. My understanding of the breakdown of the 55 is as follows. Arts SA, as of MOG changes last year, is really now focused on policy advice and grants administration, and there are 13 staff who are involved in those two areas. In addition to that, 13 people sit within DPC more broadly who provide that corporate overhead. So people and roles that were previously undertaken within Arts SA are now in DPC—finance, human resources, some infrastructure management and so on and so forth. They have been transferred out, so there are another 13 there. That means there must be 29 who are in Artlab.

Ms STINSON: So 29 people in Artlab now?

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

Ms STINSON: So there are not separate people allocated to the State Library, public libraries, the Art Gallery of SA, the SA Museum anymore?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Those agencies would report their staff separately, but there are no Arts South Australia employees separated out within their numbers. That is the way the 55 is derived; 13 are for policy and grant management, 13 for more corporate overheads that are allocated, if you like, back from the DPC staff to Arts SA, to come up with the 55, and then 29 in Artlab. The 29 in Artlab is really exactly the same. If you go back to the 2017-18 year, there would have been around that number of the 81 who were Artlab employees.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 28, under the heading Arts and Cultural Policy and Support. Does Arts SA still exist, as in is it a brand you still use?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that it is something still being used from time to time, yes.

Ms STINSON: Can you give me some examples of where it is now being used? It is just that there is no mention of it in the budget.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that it is not as though we have recalled everything and no longer use the brand, but we are not proactively setting up a separate brand for a separate agency Arts South Australia now.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 78, the national Aboriginal art and cultures gallery. Could you provide the breakdown of state and federal funding by year for the gallery?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: From a state perspective, my understanding is that we included $60 million in last year's budget, the first of which appeared in 2021. There was $60 million of state government money, which was provided in two years: the first $10 million was in 2021 and the second amount, the $50 million amount, is in the 2021-22 year. In terms of the federal government money, I understand that we have been provided with $85 million in capital to go towards the gallery, although I think some of the recommendations coming to us now might change the name to 'centre'. In the forwards, my understanding is that $13 million of that is available out of a total of $85 million.

Ms STINSON: That is the coming four years of the federal budget you are talking about?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Ms STINSON: Was there $200,000 for a scoping study in the previous financial year, 2018-19?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Is there $500,000 in 2019-20 for a business case?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

Ms STINSON: My calculation—and maths is always dangerous, of course—is that all that adds up $145.7 million.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Why, then, in the written explanations do the budget papers say that this adds up to $150 million? Is there other money that I am unaware of?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will take that on notice because that is a Treasury reference and there may be another government department that is allocating some money towards this. We are not 100 per cent sure. It is not DPC money towards that number. To be clear, we are not yet in receipt of the original scoping study final report, although my understanding is that it is imminent. Then we need to get on with the business case. The final budget for the Aboriginal art and cultures centre is yet to be determined.

The good news is that we already have that $145 million or $150 million, which is already in the forward estimates. Because the site for this is still under demolition and that work is going to take another 18 months, we still have time to get the overall planning for this right. I thought it was very important to try to get the money locked into the budget and the commitment from the federal government locked in as part of our City Deal so that it is available. Rather than having a big shock when the final business plan is complete, it is actually provided for.

Ms STINSON: It is rather an important point, how much it is costing. From my understanding, there is $145.7 million in the budget papers; that is, in your agency and anywhere else, only $145.7 million has been publicised. However, in your media releases, in all media coverage, in your own comments to the media and indeed in the explanatory paragraphs, it talks about there being $150 million. Is there somewhere else that that remaining $350,000-odd is, where we should be looking for it? It would be good to know where that money is, if you are claiming to be spending $150 million.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that what you are suggesting is that there is actually $4.3 million missing. I do not know where the other figures that you have just come up with come from—

Ms STINSON: I am sorry, yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —but I will, as I previously answered to the committee, chase up that discrepancy with the Treasurer. As I said, it is quite possible that other departments are making a contribution to that. It is not easily understood just at the moment, but I will definitely follow it up.

Ms STINSON: How is it that you have been telling the community that you are spending $150 million on a new art gallery but you have not asked previously what makes up that $150 million and where it is coming from?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think most people appreciate that there is a business plan that is currently underway.

Ms STINSON: Yes, but the money for that is allocated, and we can see that money in the budget papers. It is the remaining—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my explanation.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 5, page 78, the same reference, states that the $500,000 committed in this year's budget is in addition to already announced funding of $150 million. Does that mean that the total amount is $150.5 million—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Ms STINSON: —or has that been poorly written, and is that another error?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. That is new money, the $500,000 that is in the arts budget.

Ms STINSON: New money on top of maybe $150 million.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided my answer.

Ms STINSON: On Budget Paper 5, page 78, the same reference, why is the estimate of expenditure on the gallery in 2018-19 recorded as nil when last year's budget allocated $200,000 for the scoping study? Is that because it has not been billed yet? You did say earlier that it was being done but just had not been delivered yet. Does that mean that it just has not fallen against the budget papers yet, or is there some other reason?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It would have been allocated against a different general ledger item.

Ms STINSON: Would you mind explaining that to me?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The $200,000 was allocated in the first year to the scoping study. We have allocated $500,000 to the business plan, but the business plan might come out of a different line item that exists within the DPC budget, but it is still money that is going to be expended against that centre.

Ms STINSON: When do you expect to have the PricewaterhouseCoopers scoping study?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have an exact date, but I am happy to provide that. However, I think it must be very soon because we received a reasonably complete draft about four or five weeks ago that was only subject to a few further consultations. My gut feeling is that it would be in the next couple of weeks.

Ms STINSON: Will that be released publicly, or does it need to go to cabinet first?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Most things like this would go to cabinet for noting before a public release, yes.

Ms STINSON: So you are intending to release that scoping study publicly, in full?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, of course.

Ms STINSON: What about the business case; when will that start? Has that already started, or is it dependent upon the completion of the scoping study?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. Obviously we need to get the scoping study first that will inform the business plan. But, again, I thought that we have to get the money allocated into the budget to go to the next step so that we can get that done and move the project forward.

Ms STINSON: When do you expect the business case to be completed?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am hoping it will be done in this current financial year.

The CHAIR: The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the scoping study and then presumably the business case that follows seek to make an assessment about the expected demand, attendance, interest and economic activity as a result of tourism that would be associated with the gallery?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is it possible that that piece of work will come back and say that that level of interest is not to the extent that everyone would collectively hope?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are confident that it will.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But is it possible?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, we are confident that it will.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How can you be confident?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the opinion that we have formed. If you have an alternative view, if you think that people are not going to be interested in Aboriginal art and culture, please feel free to make that statement. I am happy to take that on board; however, we feel very confident that this will be very well regarded. Despite the tourism interest, we have one of the most incredible and extensive collections that exists anywhere in the world and I think we have an obligation to make it more publicly available.

I think the current collection, especially the collection in the SA Museum, has really been stored in a completely and utterly inappropriate condition for a long period of time. Few people have been able to access that collection. I think that we as a state have an obligation to share it, and that is precisely what we will be doing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the scoping study and business case is analysing economic activity, interest and demand and it comes back and says, 'We have reservations around the economics of this,' do you still intend to proceed with the project anyway, in light of the fact that you think there is a higher order cause here? Or, does the scoping study and business case actually have an impact on the decision you take? It is a genuine question. Has a decision been made and regardless of what the business case and the project's scoping study says you are going to do this anyway?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What do you mean by that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are proceeding with this project and we are absolutely confident that this will be a very important centre, not only for cultural reasons but also for strong economic reasons.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So why are you doing the scoping study and the business case? If it is not going to inform any decision, why are you doing it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It will, but your question was: what if it comes back and raises concerns; will you not be proceeding with it? I just pointed out that we will be proceeding with it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Even if the business case study says that it does not stack up, the interest is not there or whatever it might be—which no-one is hoping for—if that eventuated, are you telling me that you are just going to proceed with this $150 million expenditure in any event?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: These are questions about a $150 million investment of taxpayers' money.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The Wine Centre mark 2.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is exactly what we want to avoid. I am just trying to understand. Are you just saying, 'I am not going to answer questions; $150 million, I will spend it as I see fit. Scrutiny can go somewhere else'? Is that the approach we are adopting here?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think it is almost extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition would characterise our position on this in that way. I think he would be currently offending a huge number of people in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not offending anyone. I am asking you to explain the decision-making process.

The CHAIR: Leader, we have had this discussion before. The Premier is answering your question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think a lot of people will be offended, Mr Chairman, that the Premier is not willing to answer some pretty basic questions.

The CHAIR: Leader, you have asked your question. The Premier is answering it. Do you have anything further to add, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can the Premier please explain what this scoping study from PwC, which is presumably costing the taxpayers of South Australia some money—$200,000—is informing?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We sort of went through this last year. I am very happy to go through it again. We will be publishing the entire document and, once you see that, you will understand that there is some complexity with regard to exactly and precisely what the gallery/centre will be.

As we have said, we have two incredible collections with the Art Gallery and also the South Australian Museum. We also have to interact with other cultural entities, in particular Tandanya in South Australia. We have done a huge amount of consultation with Indigenous groups in South Australia and more broadly around precisely what the scope of the gallery will be. I am quite convinced that what we will end up with in the final report will be of world significance. I think many jurisdictions have talked about a national art and cultures gallery for a long period of time. I think Australia needs something of this calibre and so we are proceeding with it. We have allocated initial moneys in our first two budgets for it.

It does not mean to say that it is not without its complexity, because trying to work out what the governance arrangements will be and what the access arrangements will be are not easy questions to answer, and that is why we decided to work with PwC to develop this scope. Once it is received by cabinet and published, we will then go out to the market to get a business case developed for this gallery. We think this is the right way to go about it. It is disappointing that it has been characterised differently by the Leader of the Opposition in contrast quite distinctly from—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry, Premier, but that is a really, really absurd characterisation of a question.

The CHAIR: Leader, you are called to order. We have had this discussion. This is the third time. You are asking questions—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the Premier misrepresents a question—

The CHAIR: You are asking questions and the Premier is answering them.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We are asking questions, not making statements.

The CHAIR: And the Premier is answering.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that our approach is quite different from the previous government's approach. We note that, with regard to a gallery on that site, the government had multiple iterations in a public design competition. In fact, I think there were two where they awarded it and did not have any money in their forward estimates ever to actually deliver, so they took the sector here in South Australia on a merry dance, getting them to do a huge amount of work at huge cost and no gallery.

By contrast, what I think we have demonstrated is putting the money into the budget and then going about the detailed work that is necessary to deliver a world-class centre for us here in South Australia. As I said, I think that the collections we have are extraordinarily precious and significant, and we would like to share those with the world. I think that we will create a tourist attraction of national and international significance and that we will have a very profound effect on increased visitation in Adelaide.

We have seen what has happened in other jurisdictions where they have created galleries. They have seen very significant increased numbers of visitors. We have seen it in South Australia when we have had exhibitions of international standard here that have driven increased visitation to South Australia. I think of Colours of Impressionism, which was held at the Art Gallery of South Australia, Turner from the Tate, and, of course, Tarnanthi—all world-class exhibitions that have driven increased visitation to South Australia. We would like to have something of that scale but on a permanent basis here in South Australia, and I am quite convinced that we have the collections to deliver on that.

One of the things that we are doing to make sure we are ready is putting some money into last year's budget and this year's budget for the more appropriate storage of some of the artefacts in the SA Museum's collection. I am informed that last year we spent $380,000 on more appropriate storage of our collection at the South Australian Museum's Netley storage facility and that in the next two years we will spend an additional $2.6 million to do the urgent immediate works that were neglected in times gone by.

I emphasise to the committee that this is only a partial solution to the storage issue, but this will deal with the immediate requirement. The department is also working on medium and longer-term solutions to the overdue storage problems that we have in South Australia.

Ms STINSON: Premier, are you confident that the $150.5 million will cover the cost of the planning and construction of the gallery?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No; that is why we are doing the business case.

Ms STINSON: So how have you arrived at the $150.5 million figure?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that is the minimum amount. As I have already elaborated upon twice in this committee, I think it shows real conviction when a government puts the money into the forward estimates. It really shows that we are going to do this. It is not just, as I described before, taking people on a merry dance and dangling a carrot. The first significant amount of expenditure, which is $10 million, is in the 2020-21 year and $50 million is in the year after.

Ms STINSON: If that $150 million is just a starting figure, are you expecting it to be something more like $350 million, which was the Sydney gallery, or $400 million like the Melbourne gallery? Is that actually the figure you think you will arrive at?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Ms STINSON: Do you have a ballpark idea of where you will end up? Is $150.5 million pretty much what you think you are going to spend, or do you think it is going to be significantly more than that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We just need to wait and see. If you think about building costs at the moment, for a project of this level, you tend to work on around $10,000 per square metre, so $150 million would provide 15,000 square metres or thereabouts. I do not want to be held to the exact $10,000 per square metre figure; I am just using this as an example of what valuers would use to arrive at a cost estimate. To put it into perspective, 15,000 square metres is much larger than the existing Art Gallery and Museum added together.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, part 2, pages 77 and 78. This is relation to the Aboriginal cultural storage collection you mentioned earlier. In your policy documents, you put forward that the new Aboriginal art and cultures gallery would solve the problem of the storage facility at Netley, but it appears from the comments you have just made that the money set aside under this budget measure is only to upgrade the existing facilities at Netley. Have I understood that correctly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the study that is being done into the medium and long-term storage of the collection at the SA Museum because it is a broader piece. It does not just deal with the SA Museum; I think it also deals with the Art Gallery, the State Library and the History Trust. We were convinced by the SA Museum that urgent work was required to protect the collection from deterioration, so we decided to proceed with that as a matter of urgency.

We do not think that this money will be wasted because much of the $2.6 million expenditure is spent on putting systems in place regarding bar coding and so on and new facilities to store. Ultimately, they can be transferred to other locations. There is some racking, but the racking can be moved, the packaging can be moved, and the identification will be useful anyway. So, no, I do not think it is wasted expenditure.

Ms STINSON: What I am trying to find out is: will the full contents of the storage facility at Netley at the moment be transferred to the new Aboriginal art gallery, or is the plan now to upgrade the Netley facility and have the items remain at the Netley facility, or is there some other option?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We do not own the Netley facility; I think the previous government sold it some time ago. My understanding is that at the moment the amount of our collection on public display is a couple of per cent. It is really just a fraction of our total collection. Obviously, a larger proportion of that collection will be displayed in the new gallery. I do not think that there is a definite position on whether or not the storage of the entire collection will be incorporated into the new design. I do not think that we are at a position on that.

I note that, in some similar museums, they co-locate the collection with the display. I am thinking particularly of Quai Branly in Paris, where they have the vast majority of their collection actually stored on site. This allows better interrogation of the collection by key stakeholders. Other galleries have separated those things out. In particular, earlier this year I visited the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, where they had one site dedicated to display and another site dedicated to storage and ongoing research. I do not think that we have formed an opinion on that at this stage.

Ms STINSON: But it is unlikely that the contents of the Netley facility will all end up in the new gallery; is that right? I have been out there myself as well and had a look at it. It is unlikely that you are going to move all of that into the new gallery.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I have just said, I think that is yet to be determined.

Ms STINSON: You also just mentioned that the state does not own the Netley facility. I assume, though, that at least some of this money is for fixing the roof.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that there have been improvements to the roof. I can get an update on that. We will get an update on the roof situation. It was a longstanding issue we inherited from the previous government, but I have been advised that it may have been rectified already and that this money is really linked more to those three aspects I outlined before: the identification, the packaging and the racking systems. That money would need to be spent whether it was stored at Netley or elsewhere, so I do not consider that to be wasted money if we move the collection.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 28 regarding the arts plan. Have you received the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Ms STINSON: You have not received it from the consultants you hired and gave a 30 June deadline?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I heard that you made those comments in parliament yesterday. I do not know where that came from. I think that the original—

Ms STINSON: From you. You said that 30 June was the date you were receiving the documents from the consultants. Certainly, the entire arts sector understands that on 30 June you got that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, no, you informed parliament yesterday that I had received it; now you are saying that I said that I was going to receive it—

Ms STINSON: Well, actually I am asking you if you have received it. Have you received it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is very hard to finish a sentence here, isn't it, sir?

Ms STINSON: You seem to be confused about the question. I am just trying to help you out. The question is—

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I have taken the Leader of the Opposition to task on this already. I suggest that, after you have asked your question, you wait for the Premier to answer without interjecting.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. I was just making comment that yesterday the member for Badcoe informed the parliament that in fact we had received it. Now that she is aware that we have not received it, she may have to inform parliament of that error. The original due date was for 30 June, and the authors of the report requested some time ago that there be an extension of a month, which we granted. They did considerably more consultation than was originally envisaged, and we were delighted with the attendance at the consultation. It was well beyond any expectation that we had originally—

Ms STINSON: I went to it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —so there was a further month that was granted to them.

Ms STINSON: What is the new deadline now?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said in my previous answer, there is a further one-month extension, so that should be received by the government by the end of July, and that will then be something which, of course, cabinet will consider and then publish.

Ms STINSON: Do you expect to publish a full consultants' document?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Is that the arts plan in itself, or will you be receiving a report from the consultants and then devising your own arts plan after you receive that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are going to be publishing the results of the work that has been done. We will then reflect on that and we will respond accordingly.

Ms STINSON: Will there be any budget allocation for implementing the recommendations of the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Say it again, sorry?

Ms STINSON: Will there be any budget allocation to implement the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have not seen it yet.

Ms STINSON: Are you envisaging that money will be required to implement the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, certainly money will be required to implement the arts plan, but whether or not—

Ms STINSON: But you might not provide it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is that a question, or is that a statement?

Ms STINSON: No, it is a question. You just said that money would be required for the arts plan, but you also said that you wanted to see the arts plan before allocating any money. You either think that there will be money required in the arts plan, and you are going to provide that money, or you are not going to provide that money.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To be clear, I think that we have made it reasonably clear to everybody in the arts sector in South Australia that we want to devise a new arts plan that will inform the way that we spend money going forward.

Some things that we are currently doing will be continuing, some things that we are doing may stop and some things that we might be doing going forward might be new items. We will need to see the arts plan before that is determined, and I think that is a very reasonable position to take. We have been very clear with the arts sector in South Australia that we are not flush with funds at the moment.

The most recent budget has provided a $2.3 billion writedown in revenue to the state. At the same time, we have not provided further budget savings for the arts sector in the most recent budget. In fact, there is an increase in expenditure, so they know that it is a difficult time at the moment. We would not envisage massive increased expenditure, but we will wait to see what the arts plan provides.

Ms STINSON: Could there be some cuts to some organisations as a result of the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's just wait to see what the arts plan provides. Everybody has had input. I have been delighted with the feedback that I have received from people within the sector who appreciate the fact that they are going to have an arts plan, an arts direction, in South Australia. It has been quite some time between drinks for an arts plan for South Australia. I think that the early work that I saw was very positive. Feedback from the sector has been very positive, and I think that this document will provide a longer term direction for arts in South Australia.

Ms STINSON: Were the consultants advised not to speak with any organisation or individual during their consultation on the arts plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Ms STINSON: So the consultants were not told not to speak with the opposition?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. All the sessions that were run were public events. There were hundreds of people there.

Ms STINSON: Yes, I attended them. A series of one-on-one interviews were conducted with arts organisations and other individuals in the sector. Can you tell me how many of those were done and, for that matter, if a list is available of which organisations there are I would be pleased to receive that as well.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, this is in relation to the development of the arts plan; is that your query?

Ms STINSON: That is right, sir.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that more than 200 face-to-face meetings were held, with up to 600 individuals in attendance at town hall meetings across metropolitan and regional settings. In addition, I am informed that 150 written submissions were received (I am not sure whether one of those came from the opposition), and over 1,700 online surveys were completed. I will make inquiries whether the opposition made a submission.

Ms STINSON: I would know if I did. Could you please provide a list of the organisations that had face-to-face meetings and the organisations, or individuals for that matter, that submitted written submissions?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will ask the authors whether they are happy to provide that information.

Ms STINSON: Could we receive their actual submissions as well?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 29, net cost of providing services. Was the savings target of $4.9 million for Arts SA and arts organisations in last year's budget achieved?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that it was achieved, but as you would see—

Ms STINSON: You think that it was?

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I think you have precluded the answer by interjecting.

Ms STINSON: That is fine; I can ask another one. Was the savings target of $4.9 million for Arts SA achieved? Have you been advised that that target has been achieved?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just gave that answer to the committee.

Ms STINSON: You said you think so, so do you think someone advised you of that, or do you know that someone advised you that the savings targets were met?

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

Ms STINSON: It is a fairly important question: were the savings targets met for the arts budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure if I can finish an answer without being interrupted on this occasion, but the reality is that what is provided in the budget is an estimate to the end of the financial year, which has only just concluded. What happens is a reconciliation process over the next couple of months before a final figure is arrived at. I envisage that we will come to a position where we have achieved all our budget savings.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 28. Your Investing in the Arts election policy document stated that you get matched funding from the corporate and philanthropic sector for arts grants. Where is that money in the budget?

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

Ms STINSON: Your election policy stated that you will get matching funding from the corporate and philanthropic sector for arts grants. Where is that money in the budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think most of the individual organisations are working very diligently to get corporate sponsorship, donations and philanthropy, and I am certainly assisting organisations as much as possible to that end. We have a very generous philanthropic sector in South Australia, and we should be very grateful for that. I know that the arts organisations in South Australia have performed particularly well in this area in recent times.

Ms STINSON: Do you track the philanthropic commitment to arts in this state?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would be something that would be done at the individual level. For example, the Art Gallery of South Australia would have a measure, Carrick Hill would have a measure and so on and so forth.

Ms STINSON: So how can you be confident that you are meeting that election promise?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, that is exactly what we are working towards.

Ms STINSON: So that is not achieved yet?

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

Ms STINSON: Your Investing in the Arts policy document also committed to triennial arts funding for arts organisations. Where is that detailed in the budget, and is that a policy that is being applied?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If you think about what we have done most recently with the Adelaide Festival, we have given them a commitment for three-year funding for their major work. They made the representation to us that this was needed to be able to secure works because many of them actually have quite a long lead time. They cannot just decide in March to have an opera in July—these things sometimes take a year, two years or three years—so we have provided that forward commitment, if you like, to that project, which has a long lead time.

Ms STINSON: Are there any other organisations that are receiving triennial funding aside from the Festival? I am happy to receive a list at some later date if that is easier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are certainly keen to provide greater certainty to arts organisations. This is one of the issues that I think will be addressed in the arts plan, but I am happy for the department to provide further advice on an individual basis.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. You also made an election commitment to establish a commissioner—

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, this will be your final question. We need to move on to Veterans SA.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, sir. You made an election commitment to establish a commissioner for cultural development. Has that been done, and where is that in the budget?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, we decided to put that issue on hold pending the arts planning process. That will be something that may or may not be taken up in that process.

The CHAIR: The time has come for us to move from Arts SA to Veterans SA.

Membership:

Hon. A. Piccolo substituted for Ms Stinson.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Price, Chief Executive, Defence SA.

Mr R. Barnett, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Defence SA.

Mr R. Manton, Director, Veterans SA.

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.

The CHAIR: The next session we have in Estimates Committee A is Veterans SA. Premier, would you introduce your advisers please?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is my great pleasure to introduce to the committee this afternoon Rob Manton, Director, Veterans Affairs, and reintroduce Richard Price, Chief Executive, Defence SA.

The CHAIR: Do you intend to make an opening statement, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir.

The CHAIR: Then I call for questions.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just before I begin I would like to put on record the opposition's appreciation for the government and Veterans SA's successful commemoration of World War I over the period 2014 to 2018, including the production of the booklet Valour and Violets, which chronicles the impact of the Great War on South Australians who served and on those who waited at home for them to return.

I also acknowledge the major centenary project, the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Garden Walk along Kintore Avenue, which has been well received by the community and by the veterans community in particular. On that note, could the Premier confirm the current status of that project and under whose care and control it is? Also, what was the final budget for that project?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is the ANZAC commemorative walk?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will ask the director to provide that information.

Mr MANTON: Thank you for the question. The memorial walk has been transferred to the Adelaide city council. It is the subject of negotiation between the Adelaide city council and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for its ongoing maintenance. I am uncertain of the status of those negotiations, but I believe they are ongoing.

The final cost of the project was $9.3 million, I believe. A total of $5 million of that was from the federal government, $3 million from the state government and approximately $1½ million dollars from the Adelaide city council, who then provided further funding for the resurfacing of Kintore Avenue, taking their contribution to in the order of $2 million.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to draw the Premier's attention to Budget Paper 5, Defence SA Departmental Efficiency Measures, on page 26. In your capacity as Minister for Veterans Affairs, what benefits do you hope to achieve from the transferring of the Veterans SA program to Defence SA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I certainly believe that there will be some benefit from working in a larger office where there are opportunities to interact with another agency of government which has an interest allied to their own. I think we have been extraordinarily satisfied with Veterans SA since coming to government. It was an initiative of a former government; in fact, it was an initiative of premier Rann.

We were very happy to support the establishment of Veterans SA, and it basically has been in various government departments in the past. On coming to government, it was moved to the central agency of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and relocated to Wakefield House. It does have a small number of staff of 4.4 people. We just felt that there were some advantages in having them within a larger office, providing cover when people are on leave. As I said, we think that there are some crossovers between the two portfolios.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Does the Premier envisage any administrative or budget savings from the co-location or the merger of Veterans SA into Defence SA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Nothing specific. Within Defence SA more broadly, there are some efficiency targets that we believe we will be able to deliver. That will be a matter for the chief executive and the director with regard to how some of the overhead work is done within Veterans SA, although I think probably DPC was doing the overhead work. The work that was done in providing support to Veterans SA to deliver on their programs was previously provided by DPC. That will now be done within Defence SA.

As we heard earlier today in reports to this committee, Defence SA is an organisation with full corporate overhead providing finance and HR, which I think is a nice sort of crossover between the two. Sometimes an agency like Veterans SA can, as a small organisation in a big department like DPC with over 550 people, not be as comfortable a fit as Veterans SA sitting within Defence SA, which is more in the order of 20 to 30 people.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to make sure I have understood your answer correctly, my understanding is that previously Veterans SA was in DPC—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —and that some of those corporate services provided by DPC will now be provided by Defence SA—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —such as HR, etc., and that, as a result of, you do not anticipate any administrative or budget savings from Veterans SA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not that I am aware of, no.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What is the agency's status now in the 2019-20 financial year? Is it an administrative unit or is it still self-contained? Perhaps you can just clarify the status of the agency as of this year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is precisely what it was previously; it was just sitting within DPC and is now sitting within Defence SA.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Now that it is part of Defence SA, is Defence SA reviewing the role and activities of Veterans SA?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are always ongoing reviews, but there is no specific review being undertaken of their programs. They are all continuing in the budget as outlined when we handed down the budget. The work that they do is changing over time. I think you quite rightly pointed out in your opening statement that there was a great focus on commemoration in the lead-up to the centenary of ANZAC between 2014 and 2018. That work was a huge additional workload, but it now shifts to other issues—some more contemporary issues.

Starting this financial year is the early work on the business case, if you like, for the Torrens Parade Ground hub. Currently, that is a facility that has a state government agency and has some ex-service organisations in it. It is an incredibly iconic location in South Australia. We have previously asserted that we think we should look at the possibility of creating a veterans hub on that site, not only with Veterans SA but also with other ESOs. We have also made it very clear to the veterans community that it is not something that we have the money for immediately but that we will commence early work this financial year. We are just trying to shore up the viability of that to inform future budgets.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Whereabouts in the budget is that mentioned? I noticed that the work you will be doing on the hub was mentioned in last year's budget, but the budget papers are silent this year. Now that you have raised that, it might be an opportune time to explain what sort of resource will be made available for that investigation to be progressed.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that will be funded out of the Premier's contingency. I do not think that Rob Manton has any money for me. He is so tough, that guy.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What sort of time frame do you anticipate?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This financial year.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So by the end of this financial year there will be a proposal to do something or not do something, as the case may be?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have yet to go out to the market to determine what that will be like. As soon as we have that information we will be making it public, and I am certainly happy to provide you with a briefing on it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In an earlier answer, in terms of the size of Veterans SA, the director mentioned an FTE figure of 4.4. In the budget papers, in Volume 4 on page 14, the workforce summary shows 5.3. Can somebody provide a reconciliation of the difference?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I advise the director to provide that information to the committee.

Mr MANTON: I am not familiar with the page that you are referring to, but the—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is a Defence SA workforce summary for their section that includes Veterans SA.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I can tell the member that that would be the allocation of overhead towards it. Just as we went through with Arts, there is an allocation of 13 DPC people. Clearly, there are direct program people and then there would be an allocation of overhead.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Are you saying that there is actually an FTE figure of 5.3 in that unit?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I advise the director to explain a rather complicated arrangement that we have with regard to an employee of SA Health who is based at the Jamie Larcombe hub.

Mr MANTON: You would recall that the Jamie Larcombe Centre model of care incorporates research, inpatient, outpatient and the Partnerships Hub. The position of the Partnerships Hub Coordinator is a health employee auspiced to Veterans SA for the period governed by a memorandum of administrative agreement with SA Health, and that is the reason for the discrepancy in the numbers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In fact, if you describe Veterans SA as the general unit, you only have 4.4 staff.

Mr MANTON: In my office there are 4.4 of us, and the Partnerships Hub is the fifth person.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Mr Price is very generously providing the overheads, free of charge.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Premier, in an earlier response, you indicated that the change for Veterans SA from DPC to Defence SA had some benefits. Can I clarify what direct contact the agency now has with you as minister and what are the actual reporting lines? How does that unit now report to their minister, given that it is under a different management structure?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Really there is just no change whatsoever. I meet with the director on a very regular basis. He tells me when I need to be at different events. We have regular meetings. There is no change whatsoever in terms of the interaction with the minister. The only change is that, instead of the director reporting through to the head of DPC, going forward he is reporting through to the head of Defence SA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If there is no practical change of any consequence, and there has not been a review following the move, is there going to be a review imminently of the way that Veterans SA operates? Is there an intended review?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just to clarify, when you say there have been no changes, the question I was asked by the shadow minister was: is there any change in the interaction with the minister and the answer to that is no. But, as I have subsequently outlined, the reporting has changed but there is certainly no review imminent or underway in regard to the work that Veterans SA is doing. We have only just published the budget, which outlines the budget for this year and the forward estimates and also puts out the highlights that we have achieved and then the targets for subsequent years.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So why the change?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I outlined that only a few minutes ago—literally only a few minutes ago I went through that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just trying to understand the logic of the decision to make the move in light of the fact that the veterans community up until this point seems to have been incredibly satisfied with the work that Veterans SA has been undertaking.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided an answer. This was not because we were dissatisfied with the work of Veterans SA. For the reasons I outlined before—and I am happy to repeat, sir; I am sure you were listening—we just thought that that differential between four people sitting in an office of 560 people within DPC was not ideal, and we thought there was a more logical fit within Defence SA. We are very satisfied that we have made the right call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: On that, given the Productivity Commission's recent final report handed down and their recommendations regarding the relationship between their Veterans SA, which is Department of Veterans' Affairs, and defence, how do you reconcile your position given that commission's recommendations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have only just received the final report—the Australian Productivity Commission's report I presume you are referring to—and we are working through a response to that at the moment. But please keep in mind that there is a very big difference between the Australian Defence Force and Defence SA. The people who are veterans in South Australia are not former employees of Defence SA, like you are providing the parallel for at the federal level, where you have the defence—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Actually, that is not the issue the commission has canvassed but, anyway, I am happy to hear your answer.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, perhaps you could clarify your question then. I thought that was what you were—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The commission has made it very clear that by bringing the two agencies together you can blur the lines and the veterans component of it can be diminished, and that is their concern. That is why they have actually changed their recommendation, their draft report, to leave the departments separate—to make sure there are clear lines of responsibility.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was just saying in my answer, the veterans were previous employees of the defence department. It is not comparable with Defence SA. Defence SA has veterans working in it. There is no doubt about that. In fact, they have a large number of veterans working within Defence SA, and the chief executive is a veteran himself and so are most of the executives. But the reality is that it is not a former employer-employee relationship; it is quite separate. I understand the distinction at the federal level, but it just does not apply at the state level whatsoever.

The CHAIR: I believe the member for Florey has a question.

Ms BEDFORD: Premier, I am just wondering what is happening as our veterans age, and some of them are retiring from public life and public appearance altogether, and whether any thought has gone into how we might perhaps recognise the contribution of some of the significant extremely aged and frail veterans as they retire or no longer appear at ceremonies?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Do you have anything in mind?

Ms BEDFORD: I do not want to mention anyone, but someone you know—a tall gentleman who was a doctor who played a lot of cricket—has retired recently. He is not coming out anymore and has sort of vanished off the face of the veterans scene. Rather than wait for a funeral, say, we were thinking of maybe having some testimonials for some of our more significant veterans.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not something that I have received advice on before. We do have a Veterans Advisory Council, which is chaired now by retired Brigadier Laurie Lewis. That is exactly why we have a Veterans Advisory Council. That is exactly the sort of thing that I could put to him, and I would be very happy to do so.

Ms BEDFORD: It was just a thought.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: To close off, in terms of the move of Veterans SA, Premier, what is your understanding regarding the current staff of Veterans SA? Will any of the current staff in Veterans SA be required to reapply for their positions?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that is not envisaged at all.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I now refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 149, Program 3: Veterans' Affairs, grants and subsidies. What grant programs are administered through this program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Which ones—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What grant programs are administered through this program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Which grant programs are administered—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They are on page 149.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have two funds: one is the ANZAC Day Commemoration Fund and one is our annual allocation. Do you want me to read in—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, what I want to ask is: what were those grants anticipated for? Are they are a general core for grants for funding? Are they grants that also include funds for the RSL, for example? What groups are covered by that grant line?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In terms of the annual allocation of grants, the Premier's allocation, they are basically there to support the education of South Australia about the state's involvement in our nation's military history, including peacekeeping activities, to honour and commemorate the service and sacrifice of South Australian veterans and to assist the education of South Australian veterans' dependants.

There is a catch-all in there that says 'and any other purpose of a like kind determined by the Premier'. They are things like the Australian American Association, which received a grant of $1,000 to go towards the Battle of the Coral Sea anniversary celebrations. The Army Health Services Historical Research Group received a $3,000 grant for a publication on SA doctors since World War I.

We are providing money to Operation K9, which is administered by the Royal Society for the Blind, for their Operation K9 assistance dog program, which is $15,000. It is also the fund I use to provide fairly substantial grants to the RSL state branch. We provide $100,000 to them from that grant program and then also $100,000 to the Legacy Club of Adelaide, so it is a range of those two larger ones and then a range of smaller ones, in accordance with those criteria. Then we have the ANZAC Day Commemoration Funds, which have been running for—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Premier, I do not need them detailed. That is fine. I have enough information for that one, but I will qualify that comment. Does that include a grant for the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that it did in the 2017-18 financial year.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As a one-off grant?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct, but they are more than that. Some organisations might receive almost an annual distribution, some will come when there is a special commemoration and then some will come every now and then when they believe they need support.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Premier, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Program 3: Veterans' Affairs, page 149. Under highlights 2018-19, it mentions:

Established a process for collecting data on the number of veterans and ex-service personnel in South Australia who become homeless, experience mental health problems or are incarcerated.

There are two parts to this question: what progress has been made in that collection of data and can the Premier provide some specific examples on how that has been implemented to benefit individual veterans?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are doing some work at the state level, and I have also written to the Australian Statistician, Mr David Kalisch, who sits within the Australian Bureau of Statistics, requesting that consideration be given to adding a question to the 2021 national census to identify households where serving or ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force reside. I have not received any response—sorry, I am getting updated as we speak. This is like a real-time briefing.

I have good news to report to this committee, and you have heard it here first today. There are but two issues that are going to be considered for potential inclusion in the 2021 census, and one of those two is the request that we have made. I think this would be really good because we know that by getting better data we are going to be able to better serve the veterans community here in South Australia more broadly.

With regard to our state government, I think the area we are doing best is within Corrections in South Australia. My understanding is that this has been running for a year or thereabouts. When prisoners are being admitted to prison, they are asked if they have served in the military, if they were deployed overseas and if they are happy for their details to be given to Veterans SA. These names are then given to a veteran who works within Correctional Services and runs the veterans' support group for veterans in custody in South Australian prisons. This previously was not being done. It is a simple methodology that has been put in place, and we think it is adding value.

I think there are other areas we are now looking at. I am advised that we are doing some early work in the collection of data for the homelessness services sector. This is something we will be considering more broadly at the veterans ministerial council when we next meet. Hopefully, I will have more to report on that once we have been able to raise it at the federal level. I think the more we can do in terms of gathering this information and then acting upon it, the better off we are going to be.

The CHAIR: We have time for one more question.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In the evidence to this committee last year, the Premier and his advisers stressed that the data collection will be, and he just used the term 'real-time' data to enable service delivery providers and veterans groups to respond at that time. I am not sure how using the ABS to collect data will help that real time, when the person actually needs support at that particular time. What progress has been made in that area?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that you are misinterpreting my comments. In my comments relating to real time, I was informing the committee in real time that we just had a brand-new update regarding this issue. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that the census data will be available in real time. It is only collected once every five years.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can you perhaps clarify how this real-time data is being used apart from in Corrections? In your evidence to the committee last year, it was used in a whole range of areas. I would like to know what progress has been made. I am not clear from your answer what progress has been made in Health, for example, and not only Corrections but the broader justice system. You have mentioned Corrections, which is great. I understand that process was initiated by the previous corrections minister. What has actually been done? The feedback that I am getting from the ESOs is that not a lot has changed since 12 months ago from their point of view.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Given that this time has finished now, I am happy to ask the director to provide me with an update, which I am happy to forward on. If ESOs or the Labor Party have any suggestions with regard to things that we could be collecting and utilising, then we would be more than happy to do so.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We already do that. We invite your department to our forums. They are there to hear the ESOs' real-time answers.

The CHAIR: Premier, do you have more to add? I am happy to take a response to that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I think I covered that.

Sitting suspended from 16:01 to 16:16.

The CHAIR: While everyone is finding their place for the 45 minutes we are to spend on Multicultural SA, I can inform the committee that the member for Light has been discharged and has been replaced by the member for Reynell. Welcome.

Membership:

Ms Hildyard substituted for Hon. A. Piccolo

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 J. Kennedy, Director, Multicultural Affairs, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: Premier, the final session of the day is on Multicultural SA. I invite you to introduce your advisers, please.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir. In addition to Steve Woolhouse, who I have already introduced in previous committee appearances, and Jim McDowell, who similarly has been introduced on many occasions, it is my great pleasure to introduce to the committee Justine Kennedy, who is the Director of Multicultural Affairs within DPC.

The CHAIR: Thank you. You are not intending to make an opening statement, Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to.

The CHAIR: I just thought I would ask. If you would like to, you are welcome.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not made any other opening statements, but we do have 45 minutes, although I do not want to chew up any time that is available.

However, can I say to you, sir, and to the committee that this is a very important area of government policy and very important programs. I am very pleased to take on the responsibility, although I must say that I am very much supported in my role by my parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Jing Lee, and also very much supported by all members of this parliament, especially members of the Australian Labor Party who are very active members within multicultural communities, so we are often at functions together.

I think we should all be very grateful for the harmonious multicultural state that we are, and when we look around the world at the moment at different jurisdictions and see some of the consequences of a lack of harmony, I think it really gives us an opportunity to reflect on what we have here. We must never take it for granted and we must continue to work very hard to make sure that we can maintain this very harmonious relationship that we have.

With those opening statements, I am very happy to hand over to the opposition for any questions that they might have.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Premier. The member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Premier, for your opening statement. Your Budget Overview contained in Budget Paper 1 does not specifically mention multiculturism, nor does the budget speech. Can you tell us how your budget fits with achieving your vision for multiculturalism in South Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have a budget and a unit that sits within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—as I said, the central agency in South Australia. There are currently 14 people who support the government's programs with regard to Multicultural Affairs. We have allocated a budget for this current financial year of $5.56 million, and that really supports the programs that we are offering.

In addition to that, from time to time there are issues that need to be funded beyond this budget. For example, at the moment there is a program in response to the atrocity that occurred in Christchurch. Our response to that as a state was something where those sorts of issues are dealt with out of a separate budget, but by far and away our grants programs, the policy advice and the administration of SAMEAC are all contained within program 5 in DPC, which is titled Multicultural Affairs.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, how does your vision and your words on page 26 of Budget Paper 4, which state, 'This program supports South Australia's ethnic communities and promotes community capacity and harmony', align with the deal you have struck to pay workers from overseas 10 per cent less than other workers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To clarify that situation with regard to the Designated Area Migration Agreement, we would not be paying overseas workers less. In fact, incorporated within the DAMA is an inability to pay an overseas worker less than they are paid in Australia, but the TSMIT, which is set on a national level, is based on conditions right around the country, and often the TSMIT is significantly higher than the payments for workers in that sector, so it does not really reflect the situation in certain circumstances.

It is incorrect to suggest that workers from overseas would be paid less than Australian workers; that is specifically prohibited under the Designated Area Migration Agreements. More than that, we are very keen to see more people come to South Australia. We would like to grow our population. Some migration is a component of that, especially in regional South Australia, where there are very significant capacity constraints to some of those communities and some of those companies. As we fill that capacity requirement, we actually grow the overall productive capacity of that company and that community.

Currently, there are some very significant skills shortages in South Australia. That is why we applied to the federal government to create a Designated Area Migration Agreement specifically for regional South Australia, and that is one of the reasons why we overturned the previous government's decision to levy families who are sending their children to state schools in country areas, which was an enormous burden imposed upon them by the previous government.

I am trying to remember off the top of my head, but I think there was something like a $10,000 charge levied per child for those migrant families in coming to South Australia. Whilst we have not completely removed it right across South Australia, certainly for regional South Australia that massive additional burden has been removed. This is a massive benefit to those families who are coming to regional South Australia, contributing to the economy and helping us to grow the productive capacity of regional South Australia.

I am told that in many communities they make a very significant economic impact more broadly in the community, and many of them like playing for the local sporting teams. Of course, the single number one issue in many regional communities is that they have not been able to fill all their sporting teams. I am told that in some communities they have been able to recruit some of these migrants to play in their very important sporting teams, further integrating people into regional South Australian life.

Ms HILDYARD: What sectors will be targeted to achieve your increase of 1,000 business migrant nominations each year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have them. There are quite a number, certainly dozens, and I do not have that information here. Migration is actually handled by the Department for Innovation and Skills, not by Multicultural Affairs, so that is a question you could direct to that estimates committee. However, more broadly it is now available on the website; it lists all the occupations that are subject to that DAMA.

Ms HILDYARD: How will progress against that target be reported and also published?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, that will be something to direct to the relevant minister.

Ms HILDYARD: You have told us that multiculturalism is important, but last year you cut $256,000 from your budget and this year you have again cut $251,000 from your budget and $196,000 from the estimated spend to multicultural communities to access grants. Can you explain why you have made this cut, and how does this cut fit with your vision and with the statement on page 26 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4? That reads:

This program…includes grant programs to community organisations that provide services to help families and [communities] improve their quality of life and strengthen the wellbeing of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, as well as support for multicultural events and initiatives.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For starters, I would like to correct the record for the committee. The budget for Multicultural Affairs, program 5, within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet last financial year was $4.85 million. The budget this financial year is $5.56 million, so that is quite a substantial increase—

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, it is in relation to the grants program.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell—

Ms HILDYARD: I just wanted to make sure he heard my question; it was about the grants line.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, listen to me, please. You have asked a question. The Premier is answering and you will hear his answer without interjection. You will have the opportunity to ask another question—

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry; I thought he must have misheard because I am talking specifically about the grants.

The CHAIR: I am sure he did not mishear. Premier, you have the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I was just responding to the comments the shadow minister made, where she asserted there had been budget cuts. I was making the committee very aware that there has been a significant increase in this area. There is an increase from last year's budget of $4.8 million. The actual expenditure was above budget, at $5.6 million, and this year the budget increases on the budget that was provided in the 2018-19 year.

In terms of grants and subsidies, there is a reduction that follows on from the review that was done into the way that grants and subsidies are allocated. I am very pleased that what we arrived at was a best practice methodology. The new grants program, which is administered by the unit, centred around four separate programs. People make application and they are assessed. There is a greater degree of transparency regarding the allocation of that money now under grants and subsidies.

We took time to meet with the sector. They expressed some concerns about the lack of information and feedback that were previously provided, and there were concerns about the transparency of the grants process that existed in previous years. We were happy to take all those issues on board, and I can say that we have received very, very positive feedback from the sector for the reforms we have put in place.

Ms HILDYARD: Why has grant funding for communities been cut by $251,000 while budgeted employee expenses has gone up by $491,000?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the work we are doing goes beyond just administering grant programs. There are a large number of programs and projects that the department runs, and I think we are at a time when we need to make sure that we have the very best support for multicultural communities in South Australia. Grants program support is one part of it, but so is support from the unit, and that is what we have decided to do.

Ms HILDYARD: What consultation occurred before that cut—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have excellent consultation. As I said in my previous answer, the feedback we received from the sector was reasonably scathing about the previous government's administration of grants. Sure, there were people who were very happy when they received a grant, but there were many people who were very dissatisfied because it was not a transparent, open process: it was direct funding from the government, rather than an open, competitive grants process. As I said, we have received overwhelmingly positive feedback on the way that the Multicultural Affairs unit has revised the methodology.

Ms HILDYARD: What is the extra $491,000 allocated to employee expenses specifically for, and what will the three additional FTEs specifically do?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that level of information, but I am happy to provide some further feedback.

Ms HILDYARD: Is any of the $491,000 being directed to employee severance or entitlement payments?

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

Ms HILDYARD: What is the rationale for reducing grant funding whilst at the same time increasing funding for internal staffing?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I fully appreciate that you may have run out of questions just a few minutes into this estimates committee, but I have just provided an answer to that twice.

Ms HILDYARD: There are plenty more.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Keep going. We can come back to that other one. I can give that answer again towards the end.

Ms HILDYARD: Was the decision to cut grant funding and increase staffing expenses a recommendation of your review?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided a comprehensive overview of this issue with regard to grants. I think that if the member spoke to people in the sector she would receive exactly the same feedback we have received; that is, overwhelmingly, people are very happy with the arrangements we have put in place. They love the open, transparent and competitive way in which grants are administered. It is a significant improvement in terms of the way that they were administered previously.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, in relation to the Budget Measures Statement, can you guarantee that no further cuts from Multicultural Affairs will be made to meet the additional savings target from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have just put down the budget. It is only a few weeks old, so this is the most up-to-date information that we have.

Ms HILDYARD: So you cannot guarantee that there will not be any further funding cuts to Multicultural Affairs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have only just brought the budget down. This is the most accurate and up-to-date real-time information we have that talks about the budget. As I said, it is a very, very significant increase in terms of the budget over the budget that was provided last year.

Ms HILDYARD: So no guarantee then?

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

Ms HILDYARD: On page 26, it is stated that the funding review will ensure that an equitable funding structure is in place. How do you define equity?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have been through this several times, but I am—

Ms HILDYARD: But how do you define equity? It is a different question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I can define it by what is not equitable. What is not equitable is a government making decisions with no transparency, with no rationale, hand-picking organisations and a very healthy scepticism from the sector that certain groups were supported because they were particularly prevalent in metropolitan marginal seats. That is not equitable. By way of the alternative, we spoke to the sector at length about what they did not like about the previous administration and what they saw as genuine reforms and improvements, and that is precisely what we have implemented.

Ms HILDYARD: How did the review achieve equity?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot add anything further.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, will further grant funding reviews occur?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Nothing is envisaged at this stage.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you guarantee that, should there be any further funding reviews, they will not also result in further reductions in grant funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That question contains a very hypothetical presentation, but the reality is that nothing is envisaged in terms of a further review, so I am not going to start extrapolating on what could happen if a review was done and certain circumstances were arrived at.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, can you outline what conditions are put on organisations in relation to receiving grant funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding, and what I am informed, is that this is covered off in Treasurer's Instruction 15, which is the administration and acquittal of government grant funding.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, has there been any advice whatsoever given to organisations on receipt of funding, or when discussing the allocation of funding, about the involvement of the opposition in events and programs for which they utilise that funding?

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

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, has the Hon. Jing Lee from the other place provided any advice about the involvement or otherwise of the opposition in events and programs for which communities receive grant funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly not, as far as I am aware. We always welcome all parliamentarians, regardless of their political persuasion, to work with us to celebrate diversity and our wonderful multicultural community here in South Australia.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, has the Hon. Jing Lee from the other place, or any other member of the government, ever advised any organisation or group seeking grant funding not to speak with the opposition about their event or to involve them?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have already answered that in the previous question. I have nothing further to contribute.

Ms HILDYARD: What criteria are used to assess which particular events are funded?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We do not have that information readily available here, but it is all on the website, so I direct the member to take a look.

Ms HILDYARD: I did.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are criteria for each of the grant programs that we provide, and they are reasonably accessible.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, who presents the funds once they are allocated to communities? What meetings with communities are held prior to funding announcements or at the time of funding announcements?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that is pretty variable. There are a huge number of grants. Some would be presented in person, and that would be the preference—to have a member of the government present it. I know that many multicultural groups appreciate a visit from the Premier or the assistant minister or another cabinet minister or a member of parliament, but of course sometimes it is not possible. That is regrettable. Sometimes there is a presentation before an event, sometimes it has to be after an event and sometimes I think that we probably just transfer the funds because of a timing constraint. A huge number of grants are administered, but where possible we would like the government to be represented to celebrate with our multicultural community.

Ms HILDYARD: As a follow-on question, Premier, are there ever meetings held with particular communities whilst their application for funding for events is being considered in relation to that particular event? Obviously there are general meetings, but I mean in relation to the particular event that is being considered for funding.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For example, I could attend a meeting of an organisation in my electorate that is applying for a grant. The process is open, it is transparent and it is competitive. I certainly would not want to issue an instruction that members of the government cannot visit a club while it is under consideration for a grant. I think that a huge proportion of our clubs in South Australia would apply for grants from time to time. I just think it would be quite difficult to administer.

Ms HILDYARD: What is the process when grant applications are being considered? Are there ever meetings with those communities who are in that grant round whilst that grant round is being considered about that grant funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly, if I were asked to meet with a group, I would be happy to meet with that group and walk them through the guidelines and emphasise what our ambition is as a government with regard to Multicultural Affairs. It is not like the awarding of a government contract.

We really want to disburse this money each year, but we want to do it in accordance with our objectives as a government and the new guidelines which have been put in place and which recognise an open, transparent and competitive system. It is quite different from the previous arrangements, where the government would essentially meet with an organisation and strike a deal from their budget allocation. We think this is a better methodology.

That does not mean to say that from time to time an organisation might be directly funded, for example, from the Premier's contingency, but this is really few and far between. We would much prefer people to go through the process of making an application for one of the grant programs that we have just announced.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, can you guarantee that no member of your government has met with communities that are in a grant process to direct them about opposition involvement in relation to events, should they be successful?

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

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, what is your view of multicultural radio?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Multicultural radio? Of course, we are very fortunate in South Australia to have various ethnicities with their own or shared radio. I think this provides a good service to people so that we can preserve language.

Ms HILDYARD: How do you support multicultural radio?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: From time to time I am invited to appear on—not appear, because you cannot really appear on radio, can you?

Ms HILDYARD: Be heard.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am invited to attend and be broadcast on radio and, where possible—I would not like to suggest that I am doing it on a very regular basis—I am happy to go along to participate. In my particular case, this often involves where outside broadcasts are done and so you will find Italian radio or Italian and Greek TV or radio will approach me at an event and then I can issue a greeting or answer some questions and, on occasion, use my very limited language skills to offer a greeting.

Ms HILDYARD: What do you think your support achieves?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, I would like to encourage all members of parliament to engage where they can with radio and other broadcast methodologies to diverse communities in South Australia. I think it is really important that people from the broadest backgrounds in South Australia have access to politicians of all political persuasions as much as possible.

We need to have more people from diverse backgrounds represented in the South Australian parliament. I think it is really good when people get the opportunity to interact. It is not commonplace in many countries around the world where members of the public can interact very freely with members of parliament. In fact, it is something that is very particular to Australia and I think we do it particularly well here in South Australia.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Premier. Given your answer, why has radio 5EBI, which reaches 44 different language groups here in South Australia, lost its annual state government funding of $22,000?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure. I can find out and come back to you. I am not sure where they were funded from previously, whether it was a grant program or something that is administered by the Premier directly. I am happy to make inquiries and come back to you.

Ms HILDYARD: What criteria were used to determine that 5EBI's work no longer merited that funding, given that funding has been provided by successive state governments, uninterrupted, for more than 20 years?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said in my previous answer, I am not familiar where it was being funded from before, whether it was DPC, whether it was multicultural affairs, whether it was human services or whether it was the education department, but I am very happy to make inquiries and come back to you.

Ms HILDYARD: What changed that meant your government provided the $22,000 of funding last year and not this year?

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

Ms HILDYARD: What consultation about this cut to vital funding for 5EBI was had with their station manager and also their 200 volunteers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I have made an offer to find out and come back to you. I am happy for you to read in any other questions you would like me to follow up simultaneously. I know you have written all the questions down, but I cannot add any more if I do not know about it.

Ms HILDYARD: Given that you now do know about that cut, what is your message to the listeners of 5EBI and the 200 volunteers, given this cut to funding?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I am very happy to make inquiries. That is what I will do.

Ms HILDYARD: But what is your message to them? Do you have something that you would convey to those volunteers and to the people who listen?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I am very happy to make inquiries. This is the first time it has been raised with me.

Ms HILDYARD: So you were not aware that for 20 years this radio station had been funded in that way?

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

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, I think the Premier has answered that particular line of questioning. He has taken it on notice and will get back to you. We will move on to your next question.

Ms HILDYARD: I will ask two more questions that you might want to take on notice in relation to that. Premier, what is your message about that cut to 5EBI to the 31,000 people who listen to community radio because of the programs? They specifically have identified that they listen because of the programs it provides in languages other than English. Also, what is your message about this cut to the 92,000 people who listen to community radio because there are programs available on it not available anywhere else? I appreciate that you will take those two questions on notice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, on 15 May this year, the Hon. Tung Ngo from the other place asked the Hon. Jing Lee two questions that were taken on notice. To date, no answer has been provided to either of them, so I ask you those questions now. Firstly, what is the dollar figure for the total grant funding pool for the Multicultural Grants Program 2019-20 that was recently announced?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you state that question again?

Ms HILDYARD: What is the dollar figure for the grant funding pool for the Multicultural Grants Program 2019-20 that was recently announced?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will take that question on notice.

Ms HILDYARD: Okay, so it will be taken on notice again?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Ms HILDYARD: You might want to take this other question on notice, a question that has already been taken on notice. What is the dollar figure for each of the four categories of funding—Advance Together, Celebrate Together, Expand Together and Stronger Together—being offered under that grant program?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will follow that up, as per the previous answer, but I would just indicate to the committee that I have been informed that there has been no cut to funding for 5EBI. They are still funded until 2020, but we are yet to receive an application for the 2020-21 year.

Ms HILDYARD: That is not what the letter from your government that we have been shown indicates, but I am sure you will follow that up.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If you have information, I think it is important to share it with the committee. My understanding is that they are funded for the 2019-20 year, but of course there needs to be a further application for 2020-21.

Ms HILDYARD: They have been told their funding will not continue. The successive $22,000 that they have received for the last 20 years has been cut.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, I thought what you were asserting previously to the committee was quite clear and that was that they were no longer receiving money. However, as I have just pointed out to the committee, the advice I have just received is that their funding is preserved for this year but that they will need to put in a further application for subsequent years.

Ms HILDYARD: So are you guaranteeing their $22,000 in future grant application processes?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I am just clarifying the situation because what was asserted was that they were not receiving money, but they have their money for this financial year. I think it is really important that we make sure that the committee is not under the false impression that in fact they are no longer receiving any money. They will need to put in an application for further years. I think that is reasonable. I do not think anyone can have ongoing funding without review, but I think this is reasonably commonplace with most government grants.

The previous government may have provided an assurance that, come what may, you will be funded into the future. They were perfectly entitled to do that, but, as I have said, we had a major review of the way that we allocate money in Multicultural Affairs. I am 100 per cent convinced that it is a far superior model. It is competitive, it is open and it is transparent, but people do need to apply for it.

Membership:

Ms Stinson substituted for Hon. L.W.K. Bignell.

The CHAIR: You have the call, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, what was expended on the third biennial South Australian Multicultural Festival, and what is budgeted to be expended on the fourth biennial South Australian Multicultural Festival?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the budget for this year is $69,000. I am not sure if I have the information on the 2017 event. I am informed that the 2017 biennial South Australian Multicultural Festival was held in Rundle Mall, and this will now move to Victoria Square. I am informed that this will occur on 10 November this year. I am just having a look, but I do not think I have any information regarding what the cost was in 2017. The budgeted cost for this year is $69,000. I am informed that it is a reasonably similar amount to the event held two years ago.

Ms HILDYARD: So $69,000 again? Okay. Premier, what was expended by your government in the previous financial year, across departments, on the provision of translation services? What is budgeted in this financial year for the provision of translation services across departments?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a very reasonable, important and relevant question, but it would be better directed to the Minister for Human Services, who looks after those programs. They are not programs that are administered under Program 5: Multicultural Affairs within DPC.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, what was expended by your government in the last financial year on the annual Governor's Multicultural Awards, and what is budgeted for it in this financial year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know that in 2018 we celebrated the 11^th year of the awards, and on coming into government one of the first things that His Excellency asked me about was the expansion of the Governor's Multicultural Awards. We agreed with the request to significantly expand the Governor's Multicultural Awards. Last year, my understanding is that more than 800 people attended those awards, which were held within the grounds of Government House, and I am informed that the expenditure in the 2018-19 financial year was $53,853.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, do you think that 75 people attending six community forums across Adelaide and regional areas represents thorough consultation with community members, who are not linked to organisations, about the review of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1980?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think most people were informed that we are undertaking that review, and if other people have submissions we are not preventing them from making submissions to us. I am satisfied that we have spoken to a broad cross-section of people who will be affected. I am advised that six community forums were held in Adelaide and regional areas, and 76 people attended those community forums. A further workshop was also held, and I am informed that 53 people attended this stakeholder workshop.

It goes on: we have subsequently received 14 written submissions, 69 surveys were completed online, and a further 14 hard-copy responses were received. In addition to this, we have put a discussions paper up on the government's portal, the YourSAy website, and we have received further feedback via that process. Most importantly, we are attending a large number of multicultural events across South Australia virtually on an hourly basis and receiving input asking questions regarding that review. I am satisfied that appropriate levels of consultation have occurred.

Ms STINSON: Premier, earlier today when I approached the bench, did you say that I was nasty, that I ask nasty questions or that I was a nasty bitch?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, certainly not.

Ms STINSON: You did not say that I was nasty?

The CHAIR: Premier, I do not want you to answer that at this point. Member for Badcoe, this is a committee to examine the budget lines, and I do not know that that refers to any budget line.

Ms STINSON: You did not say that I was nasty?

The CHAIR: I might ask you to withdraw that question, member for Badcoe. You can talk to the Premier afterwards about that, but not here today. We have five minutes to go.

Ms HILDYARD: It is a very important question about the conduct of the Premier and this estimates process—a really important question.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that advice, member for Reynell, but I am not going to allow the question because in this committee that I am chairing we are dealing with the budget. If there is a question about a budget line, you are free to ask that.

Ms HILDYARD: The comment was made during the course of the committee; is that not relevant?

The CHAIR: I was not aware of that. I did not hear it.

Ms HILDYARD: Well, I guess it has been brought to your attention.

The CHAIR: I invite you to ask a question about the budget.

Ms HILDYARD: It is pretty important.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you probably have more budget line questions.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, do you still support the process for the selection of members to the SAMEAC board that you outlined in the 2018 estimates session?

The CHAIR: Premier, I am going to interrupt you. Hold that question for a moment. The secretary has quite rightly advised me that, according to standing orders, any complaints, such as the one raised by the member for Badcoe, need to be raised at the time, and that is stated in—

Ms STINSON: Sir, it was not sitting: it was after the session finished sitting.

The CHAIR: Thank you. That is all I will say on that. There is a standing order that relates to that.

Ms STINSON: I brought it to your attention as soon as I could.

The CHAIR: Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not recall the question precisely.

The CHAIR: Could you ask the question again, please.

Ms HILDYARD: Okay, we are not dealing with this. Premier, do you still support the process for the selection of members to the SAMEAC board that you outlined in the 2018 estimates session?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have those comments at hand, but I am happy to review them and come back to the committee.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you intend to implement a new process for appointing members to SAMEAC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As to SAMEAC members, as you will recall, we made a fairly significant change on coming to government. Whilst we were very grateful for the contribution that previous members had made to the committee, they were almost there on a semipermanent basis. We thought that there was an opportunity to have greater turnover on that committee, which would provide leadership opportunities for people within the multicultural communities in South Australia.

Ms HILDYARD: In the last estimates session, Premier—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am just finishing that off.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, I thought you had finished.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They were appointed for a two-year period, so it is my understanding that they will conclude that term probably towards the middle of next year. I think that there are 11 committee members, 10 new and one person who was on the previous South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission.

Ms HILDYARD: But it was an internal process. You spoke in the last estimates session about yourself and other members of the government talking with people and going through an internal process. Is that the way that you want to continue to appoint SAMEAC members?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have made the appointment. Those people have been appointed for two years. They conclude that term in the middle of next year. I do not think that we have fully determined precisely how the new SAMEAC board will be formed after that. There is obviously going to be a need for some continuity going from this board to the new board, but the precise make-up of that I am not really in a position to inform this committee, but we do have plenty of time with another 12 months to go.

Ms HILDYARD: Premier, will you respond to the clear message from the community that the current appointment process for members of the commission needs to be more transparent?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not had that feedback.

Ms HILDYARD: It is in your consultation document. That is a quote from your consultation survey from your department. It is your survey that you conducted, and that is a quote directly from that survey about what the community has said, word for word.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not received the consultation report yet; it has not been concluded. If some people feel that way, then that is something we can consider, and if we have to make a change then we are happy to make that change. I think that the overwhelming feedback we have received is that the concept of having a movement on that committee is an advantage. It provides people with opportunities to hold leadership positions and contribute as a voice to government.

It does not mean that some of the people who held roles previously cannot continue to play roles, and it does not mean that people who have held roles cannot come back onto SAMEAC going forward, but we made that change. Governments from time to time can change the way they go about these things, and I think that overall it has been an improvement.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to be completed. Thank you, Premier, thank you to your advisers through the day and thank you to committee members and the secretaries.

At 17:01 the committee adjourned to Thursday 25 July 2019 at 9:00.