Estimates Vote

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $2,058,173,000

Minister:

Hon. S.K. Knoll, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Oliver, Chief Executive Officer, HomeStart Finance.

Mr M. Devine, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Renewal SA.

Mr D. DeLuca, General Manager, Corporate Services, Renewal SA.

The CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the final day of the estimates committee hearing. I advise that the following members have requested to be discharged: the members for Kaurna, Enfield, Cheltenham and Newland. They have been replaced by the members for Light, West Torrens, Taylor and Narungga.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. If a minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answers to questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2019.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each should they wish. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response.

The portfolio this morning is HomeStart Finance and the Urban Renewal Authority, and the minister appearing is the Minister for Planning. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Just before I go to the minister, I remind the opposition that this line of questioning will be opened and closed during this morning. If you wish to read omnibus questions, I will leave it up to the minister as to whether he needs them to be read once or for each and every session.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think to clarify that, unless I am wrong, the rest of the day is all DPTI, so we can do DPTI as one. If you want to ask these agencies the same questions, then we might need to do them twice for the day—once in this session and once sometime during the rest of the day.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is fine. Minister, I will ask you to introduce your advisers and make a short statement should you wish.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Certainly. On my extreme left, I have John Oliver, the CEO of HomeStart Finance. To my immediate left is Mark Devine, Acting Chief Executive of Renewal SA. To my right is the General Manager for Corporate Services, Damian DeLuca. Chair, I have a very short ministerial statement to make.

The Marshall Liberal government has an ambitious growth agenda for South Australia, and Renewal SA will make an important contribution to delivering that growth through urban regeneration. The departure of the chair, Bronwyn Pike, after seven years on the board, provides an opportunity for refreshed leadership and, with it, a new strategic direction. Renewal SA is set to take that new direction under the incoming chair, Con Tragakis.

John Hanlon’s term of employment as chief executive of Renewal SA expired on 20 July 2019 and was not renewed. Mark Devine will act as chief executive until a permanent appointment is made. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Bronwyn, all the outgoing members of the board and John for their contribution.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget Paper 3, table 5.11. Could you repeat when John Hanlon's term expired?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: His term expired on 20 July.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On 20 July, so 10 days ago.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Hanlon was on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: With pay?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Hanlon was on leave. The term of his contract expired on 20 July and we are going to comply with all the provisions in his contract. The contract as it stands expired and all those terms and conditions we will uphold.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is not the question I asked you, minister. What I asked you was: was he on leave with pay?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only confirm that he was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer you to table 5.11, full-time equivalents in Renewal SA.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Which page?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 86. Was Mr Hanlon on leave with full pay?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only confirm that he was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You do not know if he was being paid?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only confirm, member for West Torrens, that he was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is there anything that prohibits you from telling the parliament whether he was being paid or not, or are you just worried about being embarrassed?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only confirm that he was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you please point to the section of the Public Sector Act that allows a chief executive or any public sector employee to go on leave outside of their entitlements or contract requirements and be on full pay?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Chair, I would ask what budget line the Public Service Act relates to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: All FTEs—all of them.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: If you have a question in relation to industrial relations—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do. In any other profession in the world, if law enforcement officers attend and an employee is the subject of an investigation, most of those people would be terminated. You chose not to terminate Mr Hanlon; you put him on leave with full pay. I am asking you: under what provision in his contract was he allowed to take leave—not annual leave, not long service leave? He was sent home on full pay. What provision of his contract gave you the legal authority to do that?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I would ask you to come back to a budget line but, more than that, I think you have made a number of assertions in the questions that you have put—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, correct it.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —that are not accurate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Which ones?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only confirm that Mr Hanlon was on leave.

The CHAIR: Minister, the member for West Torrens has referenced table 5.11, full-time equivalents, in his questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, thank you. What was the mechanism that instructed Mr Hanlon to go on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Chair, I can only point the member back to my opening statement and the answers that I have previously given.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not asking you about what occurred when ICAC raided offices that you oversee. I am asking you about what lawful mechanism you used to allow your chief executive to go on leave with full pay, which no other person in South Australia would have the benefit of.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Chair, I can only point the member back towards the statements that have been made publicly by me in this house previously and also that the commissioner himself has made. They are the only statements that can be made on the matter.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, your question is asserting that the individual was on full pay, but the minister has not actually confirmed that or not in his answers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order: it is a bit hard for the member to actually clarify, given the minister is not answering that question, so he has to work out some other way to ask the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you instruct Mr Hanlon to go on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member back to the statements that have been made previously.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So Mr Hanlon was at work one day and then not the next, and no-one knows why or how, but was paid?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I can only refer the member back to the previous statements that have been made.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was Mr Hanlon accruing entitlements while he was on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I refer the member to my previous answers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you will not tell us if he was paid while on leave. All you will tell us is that his contract expired on 20 July and that you will honour that contract in full, despite Mr Hanlon not being at work for the last 11 months. You will not tell us if you instructed him to go on leave. You will not provide the parliament with the legal instrument that you used to put him on leave. I have to say that it is pretty breathtaking in its arrogance that a minister will not comply with a reasonable question of the parliament to find out exactly how it is that a public servant can not be at work for 10 months but be paid. How?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous answers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does Mr Hanlon's contract allow him to be on leave for 11 months?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Hanlon was on leave. His contract—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What leave was he on?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: He was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What leave? Was he on annual leave, carers leave, bereavement leave? What kind of leave was it?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: He was on leave and his contract expired on 20 July. We chose not to renew that contract and the terms and conditions of his contract will be complied with in the usual course.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What does 'complied with in the usual course' mean?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: He has a valid contract and a valid instrument.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you seek advice on your ability to terminate his contract?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I can only refer the member to the opening statement that I made.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you ever consider terminating his contract?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Well, we did not renew his contract.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When law enforcement raided his office, did you consider then perhaps that, rather than pay him for the next 11 months until his contract was up, you should save taxpayers some money and terminate his contract?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: John Hanlon was on leave. His contract expired and was not renewed, and my opening statement gives the information that I can give on the matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What other public sector employee can take that length of leave without using their entitlements?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Chair, I think I am responsible for the members of the Public Service outlined in the budget items that we have open over the course of the day. I do not think I am responsible for every public servant there is, but, more than that, the Public Sector Act is not one that is committed to me, nor do I think it is part of these budget lines.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have no responsibility for the employees at Renewal SA. You just work here. You are just the minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No, I essentially have responsibility for the employees who do form part of the agencies to which I have been committed as minister, and they are the budget lines that are open.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was Mr Hanlon conducting any duties while on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Hanlon was on leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was he consulted over FOI applications while on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I refer the member to my previous statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did Mr Hanlon act as an accredited FOI officer while on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous statements.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What do your previous statements have to do with him being an FOI-accredited officer?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The previous statements put on record what I can say on the matter and that is why I put them in an opening statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you been instructed by the ICAC not to make any statements to the parliament?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I have listened carefully to the member for West Torrens—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I am not hearing you.

Mr TEAGUE: Listening carefully to the member for West Torrens, he has referred to table 5.11 on page 86 in Budget Paper 3. That certainly refers to overall full-time equivalent employees. The questioning in relation to the particular employee might tenuously be connected to table 5.11. Questions that have arisen subsequently in relation to the ICAC depart from that table, and we are otherwise confined in these hearings to matters subject to proposed spending.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Heysen. The member for West Torrens, up to this point, has referred to table 5.11 and I have been happy to accept questions in relation to that. He well knows that questions relating to ICAC are tenuous at best.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, they are not, sir. This parliament is afforded privileges and immunities.

The CHAIR: Yes, I understand that. There is privilege, but the minister also has the opportunity to answer questions as he sees fit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Minister, have you been instructed by the ICAC not to inform this parliament or this committee about matters relating to Mr John Hanlon?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my opening statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Who advised the minister to make that opening statement?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Chairman, I think the opening statement speaks for itself.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the Premier's office advise you to make an opening statement and not to answer any further questions?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think I have made the opening statement so that I can share the information that is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have not shared any information, minister. All you have told us is that a public servant—one of the highest paid public servants in South Australia—had his offices raided by law enforcement went on full pay and leave. His contract has expired, you did not terminate his contract, you let him sit at home and get paid by the taxpayer in full, he probably accrued entitlements while on leave, you are going to pay out his contract in full and you will not give us any explanation of what legal mechanism you used to send him home. Why?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my opening statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When you publish the Budget Measures Statement and you publish full-time equivalents, I could ask you about any employee in Renewal SA and you could give me their function, their title, what it is they do. But when I ask you about John Hanlon and why he was sitting at home for the past 11 months, regardless of what investigation is going on, all I am really interested in is the mechanism you used to send him home.

Any other person in South Australia would have had their job terminated and they would not be paid by the taxpayer to sit at home. Mr Hanlon was not working for the state for the past 11 months, yet you were paying him and I want to know why.

Ms LUETHEN: Point of order, Chair: standing order 128, tedious repetition of questions already presented in this debate.

The CHAIR: Well, that is a very good point of order, member for King. The member for West Torrens is looking for—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you upholding a tenuous—tedious repetition?

The CHAIR: Tedious repetition, we get a bit of that during estimates, but, member for West Torrens, you are pursuing a line of questioning on which the minister is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Refusing to answer.

The CHAIR: —steadfast with his answers, so you may like to take another tack or pursue another line.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What will be the financial settlement of Mr Hanlon's contract?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my opening statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What salary was Mr Hanlon on?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am happy to take that on notice and provide the information back to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is the acting chief executive on the same salary as Mr Hanlon?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am happy to also take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My assumption is that he is probably not. He has probably taken the same salary that he was previously as an executive or deputy. The chief executive is on leave at home while the person doing his job is earning a lower salary, turning up to work every day, and the minister will not tell this parliament what legal mechanism—how is it even possible that a public sector official can be at home for nearly a year without charge and you cannot tell us why? What mechanism have you used to send this public sector official home?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think the member for West Torrens has made a number of assertions that are not correct in his statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Then correct them.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I have offered to take questions in relation to salaries on notice and will provide an accurate answer back to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Will you take this on notice, minister: was Mr Hanlon on full pay while on leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I have made statements in relation to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you will not take that on notice?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I have made statements in relation to that, and—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would like a yes or no. Will you take that on notice?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I have made the statement that I am making on that question, and I made it at the start of the session this morning.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I ask why you will not tell us if he was on full pay?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Chair, again I can only give the same answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In your experience while at Renewal SA, are public sector officers allowed to take leave other than that they are entitled to either through contract or in the act?

The CHAIR: While the minister is seeking advice, member for King, I might take you back to your point of order about repetition. That particular point of order was once raised with a previous chair of this committee, the former member for Fisher, Dr Bob Such. He quite eloquently said that, if things were not repeated from time to time, we would not get anything done in this place. I take your point of order. We are in an estimates committee and we are going to have some lines of questioning that seem repetitious.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Some answers are repetitious as well.

The CHAIR: Indeed. The minister is always able to answer as he sees fit.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct—repetitious as it may be.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Alas, the member for King will never be in opposition, so she will not know the benefit of repetition.

The CHAIR: Order, member for West Torrens!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister has the call.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Thank you. Quite clearly, a mixture of employees exists within Renewal SA: some PS Act employees as well as others and, obviously, those on contract. Each of them may have different leave arrangements. There is a series of paid leave, whether that be long service, recreational leave or maternity leave, and obviously there are also provisions for unpaid leave. Certainly, there are employees within Renewal SA who have from time to time asked for and been granted periods of unpaid leave, and that exists within the existing industrial relations framework.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Has Mr Hanlon requested unpaid leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my opening statement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did Mr Hanlon request paid leave?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I refer the member to my opening statement and also to previous statements that I have made in this house on the matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you spoken to Mr Hanlon in the last 11 months?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I refer the member to my previous statements.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Your previous statements do not reference that.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: They reference what I can reference.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They reference what you can reference. Is there any legal impediment to you answering our questions?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I refer the member to my public statements on the matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So there is no legal impediment to you answering our questions. You are just choosing not to answer.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, Chair, I think the member can avail himself of the statements that I have made to this house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have not made any statements to this house. All you have said to us is that Mr Hanlon's contract expired. I have asked you a perfectly reasonable question about whether the taxpayer was paying him while he was at home, and you are refusing to answer. I have to say that I can understand the minister's cautiousness over other matters that are occurring in and around Mr Hanlon's absence. I am not asking him about those matters: I am asking him whether or not Mr Hanlon was being paid while on leave. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister just will not give us a matter-of-fact answer of yes or no. Can you explain to us why you will not?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Speaker, to the extent that I can give an explanation—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is Mr Chairman.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry—Mr Chairman. To the extent that I can give an explanation, those explanations can be found in the public statements I have made, including the one at the start of this session.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is your opening statement based on advice you have received?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think you can read it, member for West Torrens, and I think, as you will, you will read into it, but I have made that statement to be able to clarify to the committee and to the people of South Australia the current position, and it does provide the clarity that I think is appropriate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How do you think it looks to people who are watching this at home, or the media, when you are being asked a very reasonable question about public money and you are just simply refusing to answer? I thought that you were going to be an open and transparent government.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, that question does not relate to any budget line.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, we have been in estimates now 25 minutes. The two questions that I have asked are: what legal mechanism has been used to send one full-time equivalent home, no answer, and whether that full-time equivalent was being paid while at home, and the minister's answer to the parliament is, 'I'm not telling you.'

Mr ELLIS: Two questions in 25 minutes has to be tedious repetition, doesn't it?

The CHAIR: You can wait for the call, please, member for Narungga. I take your point, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Your questions—quite right, you have had two main questions for the first 25 minutes and the minister has answered them as he sees fit, and he was invited to make an opening statement, as are all ministers at the beginning of the session.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will ask one final question before I move on to my colleague. Minister, do you not think that the parliament deserves to know about the chief executive and whether or not Mr Hanlon was or was not being paid? Do we not deserve to know an answer to this, because there is nothing legally prohibiting you from telling us?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, Mr Chair, I think that question contains assumption. Again, it has only a basis in the member for West Torrens' mind. I think that the committee can avail itself, as can the member, of the statements I have made publicly on the matter. Those statements are designed to be able to give information to the public that it is appropriate to give, and so I have given them. That is what I would ask the member to reference himself back to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just ask you to take these questions on notice. In the 2018-19 year, how much was spent on payments to the chief executive and the acting chief executive? In the 2018-19 year, what were the total payments to executive staff at Renewal SA, and how much higher were those payments compared with the 2017-18 year? Will you take those on notice?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you.

The CHAIR: The member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will continue with Renewal SA and go to HomeStart afterwards, since that line has been opened. Minister, I draw your attention to Budget Paper 3, Chapter 5: Government businesses, Renewal SA, page 82. Minister, I note the reference in Renewal SA's leasing of heritage buildings on the site, the site being Lot Fourteen. Can the minister just briefly describe the lease arrangements for private companies at Lot Fourteen? That was not a very hard question, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: No, but the minister is seeking advice.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Do we add the time to our question time, thinking time? No? At this rate, I will get two questions in.

The CHAIR: Just be patient, member for Light. We are here until 10.15; you have plenty of time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This is one of the simple questions.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think the question was quite broad. The process whereby a tenant is able to sign off on a lease on Lot Fourteen is not a quick process. I think I am getting to the nub of what the member is going to ask questions about. Essentially, Lot Fourteen is a mixed-use site that at the moment is being activated with a number of commercial tenancies designed to bring a number of like-minded businesses from certain industries to Lot Fourteen. There is a list. In fact, I think I have provided information to the house previously on the types of industries that we are seeking to bring to Lot Fourteen.

There is a mix of buildings on the site, but the ones that have been activated first are the heritage buildings. Those heritage buildings have been refurbished and also classified according to the standard office accommodation and then provided a commercial rate of sale. For instance, you have A-grade and B-grade office accommodation, then businesses that meet the matrix and the criteria that are set out to be appropriate to come on to Lot Fourteen are offered leases.

Those leases are done at the commercial rate based on the standard of the office accommodation that is being provided. It is fair to say that, with a number of these heritage buildings, it is not A-grade space that is being provided because of limitations within the building itself, but those buildings are being offered on a commercial basis to businesses that meet the criteria for inclusion on Lot Fourteen.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: On a number of occasions in that question the minister mentioned a commercial rate of leasing or commercial leasing arrangements. Is the minister aware whether any tenants or any prospective tenants at Lot Fourteen are or will be in receipt of a government subsidy, rent discount or any pecuniary benefit related to their tenancy or proposed tenancy?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: To make a distinction here, the short answer to that question is no. All the leases that have been offered have been done on a commercial basis. As the member may or may not be aware, there are obviously commercial negotiations that are undertaken with any tenant, whether they be Lot Fourteen or outside Lot Fourteen. Certainly, these are commercial tenancies. The exception to that would be where the Department for Innovation and Skills is undertaking a start-up hub, FIXE, on Lot Fourteen.

Renewal SA has a lease with the Department for Innovation and Skills (DIS), so they have leased space. Questions in regard to their operations—and I understand there was an announcement in relation to Stone and Chalk, which has been made public—need to be directed to minister Pisoni. Certainly, there is a lease that DIS has with Renewal SA for their portion of the site, but the remainder of the site, where Renewal SA is directly leasing out to individual businesses, is done on a commercial basis.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chair, I would seek your guidance. This question was put to minister Pisoni and minister Pisoni said that you should be answering these questions.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In relation to—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, are we going to play this sort of game where ministers bat to another minister? Somebody has to actually answer the question. What is the minister trying not to tell the parliament?

The CHAIR: I think you are reading too much into that, member for Light. I do not think there are any games. You have asked your question.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, minister Pisoni was asked the same question in his estimates and he handballed it to this minister. This minister is now about to handball it to the previous minister because his estimates have occurred.

The CHAIR: Well, let's hear what the minister has to say in relation to the question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Not at all, Chair; in fact, I was merely making a differentiation between the lease that Renewal SA has with the Department for Innovation and Skills. That is a lease for which Renewal SA is responsible. The balance of the leases do sit with RSA's responsibility. I have already answered the question to say that all those leases have been conducted on a commercial basis.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So your evidence to this committee is that the lease arrangements that your agency has with the Department for Innovation are on a commercial basis—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —but that you have no knowledge whether those leases between that department and other tenants are commercial or not. You either have knowledge or you do not. If you do have knowledge, you should tell us.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, Mr Chair, the delineation I am making here is on the lease arrangements. We obviously have a lease with DIS. The subleasing arrangements that DIS has with individual tenants, such as Stone and Chalk, quite clearly come out of DIS's budget. I can speak to the balance of the leases on Lot Fourteen. Again, I have given you that information, but I make the clear distinction because, again, that is the part of the Lot Fourteen site where another agency has a budget that pertains to it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, I will ask my question again because my question was quite specific. The evidence the minister gave to the committee was: the short answer is no. The question was, 'Minister, are you aware if any of the tenants of Lot Fourteen are in receipt of any government subsidy, rent discount or any other pecuniary benefit?' that is, government receipt, not his agency. The minister says no. Minister, are you now telling this committee that those tenants, irrespective of who the intermediary landlord may be or who the intermediary agency may be, are receiving no subsidy, discount or pecuniary benefit? That is the evidence you gave earlier.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, all the leases that Renewal SA have granted have been on a commercial basis, and—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order: the minister can not answer the question—that is his choice—but he cannot just change the question to suit him. The question is about the government, not Renewal SA. I know that the minister is trying to very cleverly avoid the question and pretend to answer it.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, the minister sought advice before answering it, so I guess he is building context into his answer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is a preamble.

The CHAIR: He is building context. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, there are lease arrangements on Lot Fourteen. Those lease arrangements are undertaken on a commercial basis, but there is a lease that Renewal SA has with the Department for Innovation and Skills. There is a head lease there, but there are subleasing arrangements that sit underneath that. The budget lines in relation to those sit with the Department for Innovation and Skills. Any sort of arrangements in relation to the Startup Hub and grants that are involved with that quite clearly are a matter for Innovation and Skills.

Again, I am not seeking to obfuscate the committee here, but genuinely it is just not part of Renewal SA's remit. There is a head lease in place that provides the opportunity for Innovation and Skills to provide a start-up hub, which will provide a great opportunity for companies to be able to collaborate, innovate and also cluster together in a way that we can generate some cultural change in South Australia to really incentivise people going into business for themselves, taking risks and starting new businesses.

It is very exciting. We have the Chief Entrepreneur in place. Again, all those matters relate to the budget for Innovation and Skills. I can speak to what RSA's role is. However, in terms of visibility of what those subleasing arrangements are, they are a matter for the Department for Innovation and Skills.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Minister, is it your evidence to this committee then that your agency, Renewal SA, has no knowledge of any lease arrangements that the Department for Innovation and Skills has entered into with tenants on that site with which the agency has an agreement?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: As I think the member might appreciate, there are a number of different moving parts on Lot Fourteen, a whole heap of moving parts on Lot Fourteen. What the government has sought to do is provide a coordinating role. There is a project lead that coordinates the different agencies if they are on Lot Fourteen, and some of those come out of the Department for Innovation and Skills and some of them come out of the Premier's department, which this project lead's budget also comes out of. There are also other industries, obviously. There are defence-related industries on Lot Fourteen.

Renewal SA's role is essentially as the owner of the asset, but it is also a project company that is delivering the build. It also undertakes the commercial leasing arrangements. There is a high degree of coordination there, but there is, as the member might appreciate, money coming from different agencies' budget lines. Again, when we are talking about Renewal SA, we are talking about an agency that is not a public sector agency in the same way that the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and others are. There is a high degree of coordination there. Having said that, in terms of responsibility under subleasing arrangements, that is a matter for those agencies.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, through you, I did not ask a question about who was responsible for that. The question I asked the minister was quite clear: does your agency have any knowledge of these tenancies entered into between the Department for Innovation and Skills for those areas which your agency has an arrangement with?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a broad level of information that is shared for the purposes of being able to coordinate the efforts on the site. Again, the responsibility and the budget for those subleasing arrangements sit with the Department for Innovation Skills.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I assume your agency would have some responsibility for achieving certain KPIs in terms of the tenancy and leasing arrangements on that site, the activation of that site.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: When Lot Fourteen was transferred to Renewal SA, a series of financial assumptions were made as part of that. There was money put aside for demolition and obviously for the refurbishment of the buildings that have been retained. Also in the current budget are targets for asset sales and revenue targets, for instance, for leasing, and those provide an expected direction for how the rollout of leasing with Renewal SA is undertaken. There are not specific numbers targets, if you will—that you must have this many bodies on site by this time—but there are financial targets that provide an expectation of what the rate of progress there will be.

There are policies in relation to how Renewal SA needs to conduct itself and there are policies, for instance, around how businesses are chosen to go onto Lot Fourteen. There are very strong criteria, and I have made statements to this house previously about that, about how those policies guide Renewal SA in their work. So, yes, there are some financial targets and financial assumptions that have been built in when the project was transferred to Renewal SA, and they provide direction on the way forward and the rate of progress.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I assume that those targets also include some targets regarding tenancy mix.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, there is a strong policy on the table about what types of businesses we would like to see on Lot Fourteen. Lot Fourteen is quite hot property; it is a sought-after destination. What we do not want to do is detract from the broader office accommodation market in Adelaide, so we have put a very strong set of criteria in place about what types of businesses would be appropriate to have on Lot Fourteen. It is all about creating a cluster, a hub, that has a culture of innovation. There are certain industries that are being targeted to go onto Lot Fourteen, but that exists within a policy that any business that approaches RSA to go onto Lot Fourteen needs to comply with. It is fair to say that there are some that are knocked back.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Given that you have just indicated to the committee that your agency has a responsibility to make sure that there is a certain tenancy mix for that site—and there is a strong policy, in your words, which I understand—how does your agency achieve that when your evidence to this committee has just been that it does not know what the Department for Innovation and Skills is doing?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, in terms of the financial and revenue targets—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I am not talking about financial; I am talking about the tenancy mix. Let me be very clear: I am talking about the tenancy mix. You just indicated to this committee that your agency has a responsibility to ensure, under the strong policy of your government, a certain tenancy mix and, in fact, you refuse some potential tenancies. I accept that; it is not a problem. Given that your earlier evidence to this committee was that your agency does not have responsibility or knowledge of what other agencies are doing where it has sublet areas to it, how does your agency ensure that it meets those targets of tenancy mix?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a tenants coordination group, which has a membership of Renewal SA, Department of Innovation and Skills (DIS), Defence SA, as well as the project lead, which ostensibly comes out of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Also, given that the Lot Fourteen site responsibility rests with the Premier, essentially that group coordinates the types of tenants that are appropriate to go on Lot Fourteen. But, again, RSA is responsible for enforcing the decisions of that group for the leases that it undertakes, and DIS similarly has the responsibility then for the subleasing arrangements that it undertakes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Minister, in last year's budget papers at Budget Paper 5—and I will get to the question before you rule it out, Chair—at page 181 in your agency's budget papers there was a budget initiative that included an innovation and commercialisation precinct at Lot Fourteen. That item last year in the budget was included in featured rental subsidies of $0.48 million over the forward estimates for 650 start-ups in the precinct. Can you perhaps indicate where that item appears in this year's budget?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The $4.8 million for the commercialisation of the start-up hub FIXE, the 650 spots, they are all the same spots we are talking about. That budget line was transferred back to the Department for Innovation and Skills over the last number of months. Essentially, that budget rests with them and they have the money then to undertake that curation work of the subleasing arrangements for the site.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Given that it was actually for rental subsidies, can we assume that that $4.8 million, which your agency has transferred to Innovation, is being used for rental subsidies then?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think you need to ask the Department for Innovation and Skills that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So your agency was quite happy just to shift money across for a purpose that it was given and transfer it to another agency, no questions asked; is that what you are saying? Is that your evidence to the committee?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No, I am just saying that, given that the budget line has been transferred—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is not my question. My question is: given that your agency has transferred $4.8 million, which was given to your agency for the purpose of rental subsidies and then transferred to another agency, is the agency assuring itself that that amount has been used for that purpose and not other purposes?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: RSA's role, as I have outlined to the committee repeatedly, is one of coordination in this regard and one where there are a number of different agencies that are playing a role. I appreciate that for the member this may make it complex but, that said—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it is not complex. It is quite a straightforward question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: And I have given a straightforward answer, and that is the fact that the responsibility for that budget line sits with the Department for Innovation and Skills.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So your department has no knowledge of how—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I have—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish the question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: You can ask the same question again.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, the question is different. So what you are telling this committee is that your agency has no knowledge whatsoever of how that funding is being used?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is verballing the answer I have given the member. More than that, can I just say that—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You just told the committee—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Hold on, if I am allowed to answer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —that you had no knowledge—

The CHAIR: Member for Light, you have asked the question and the minister is answering.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: What I have said is that there is a coordination role. There certainly is knowledge and broad visibility but, again, what there is not is responsibility. I understand in budget estimates that different agencies are given budget lines to be able to deliver projects and programs. I think I have been extremely clear about the fact that, whilst we have knowledge and visibility, what we do not have is responsibility. That responsibility rests with the Department for Innovation and Skills and minister Pisoni. The member can continue to ask questions to try to shoehorn that $4.8 million into this estimates committee hearing, but unfortunately I do not think that is the way this committee works.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, I think I have been verballed now because that was not the intention of my question. My question is quite clear, and I will ask it again because clearly the minister has not either answered the question or understood the question. Either way, the question is: does your agency have any knowledge of how that money was used once it transferred to the Department for Innovation and Skills? I am not asking them to be responsible for it. Do they have any knowledge of how that fund has been used?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: They have broad visibility.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Is that a yes or a no?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: They have broad visibility. They have an understanding as to the direction.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So they have taken a little peak, but they actually have not seen it; is that what you are saying? You do not have clear view?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous answers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In other words, you are not going to answer the question.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, it might be a good opportunity now to move on to the next line of questioning.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Since the minister refuses to answer the previous question, yes, you might be right, Mr Chairman. I am trying to find a question that the minister might answer.

Mr ELLIS: He has run out.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I have heaps of questions.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Do not worry, he is much more organised with local government later on.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I refer to Budget Paper 3, Chapter 5: Government businesses, page 74. I note the reference to Renewal SA's ownership of some TAFE SA sites and premises. Minister, are you able to advise whether the Gilles Plains TAFE site is currently undergoing or about to undergo a process of rezoning that land on which the campus is located?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We did anticipate this question. It was obviously given in the education minister's estimates, and we did seek to undertake to get some information. Essentially—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Perhaps you could ask the Department for Innovation and Skills the next time you see them too?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Okay, I will move on. Essentially, the Urban Renewal Authority, on behalf of multiple government departments, whether that be environment and water, SA Health or the Department of Human Services, is preparing a structure plan over the land at Oakden and Gilles Plains. There has been community engagement on the draft structure plan, which closed on 21 June 2019, and obviously we are working through a final structure plan at the moment.

The structure plan is expected to inform a draft ministerial DPA. Proportions of that site are surplus to government or their existing use is not going forward, but there are also a number of sites under different departments that are ongoing that exist underneath the structure plan but will continue in their current use. Gilles Plains TAFE is one of those sites. The reason that it needs to be included in the structure plan is that quite clearly there are a significant number of people who work or who are taught on that site, and so prudent planning in relation to traffic management and pedestrian management for that site would mean that including Gilles Plains as part of that structure plan is appropriate. It is a key asset, a key part of that site.

The TAFE site, which is currently owned by Renewal SA, is actually being transferred back to TAFE this year. Not to verbal the education minister's comments, but there are no plans for the Gilles Plains TAFE to do anything other than be a TAFE site and it will continue as a TAFE site. Quite clearly, it is something that exists as part of that broader area. You obviously have TAFE, you have SA Health assets and you have some assets currently committed to the Minister for Human Services and to the Minister for Environment and Water.

Essentially, Renewal SA is taking an overall structure planning exercise so that we can make sure the site is coordinated. What we did not want to see happen was smaller potential developments in different pockets of the site that were not coordinated together, so we took a holistic view to undertaking how that site should be viewed going forward into the future, which is why RSA was asked to undertake a structure planning exercise. The intention is that the Gilles Plains site will not close. It will continue. If people want evidence for the direction that TAFE is going to take, the fact that the asset is being transferred back to TAFE I think is a strong indication that it is going to continue in its existing use.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So what you are telling this committee is that the TAFE is safe but that other agencies may be put on the market, or that landholdings with assets, or other agencies on that site or that precinct are going to be put on the market?

The CHAIR: Just so that I am clear, member for Light, we are on pages 94 and 95?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Page 74, sir. The minister has just ruled out the TAFE being sold. He has not ruled out other parts of the site being sold off.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There are some parts of that site that are already declared surplus and there are some parts—Gilles Plains TAFE and a number of SA Health assets—that will continue in their existing use. There are some parts of that site that would be released for other development in the shorter term and there are other assets that will need to be held for the longer term. Something that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield was very keen for us to do was to make sure that we undertook a broad, long-term plan for that site so that we can master plan the other site, especially in relation to traffic—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, minister. I do not need the whole previous answer again, if that is okay. I am happy with your answer.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I had not finished yet, Chair.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: One thing about tedious questions is that there is nothing worse than tedious answers, repetitive answers.

The CHAIR: He is indicating that he wishes to continue with his answer, so let's—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is very talkative now, isn't he?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, he is trying to wind down the clock.

The CHAIR: Thanks, member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: He is trying to wind down the clock, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, order! The minister will finish his answer. Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The request from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield was that we undertake a master plan for the entire site to make sure that it was coordinated in its rollout and development. That does not mean axiomatically that existing assets are just going to be vacated. Again, what we are looking at is a broad, long-term vision to make sure that site is coordinated, as opposed to a hotchpotch approach to small spot rezonings.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I defer to my colleague for the next question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standard in most executive contracts is a clause for reappointment, whereby executives must be advised, or give advice, six months prior to their contract expiry as to whether or not they wish to seek reappointment. Was that clause in Mr Hanlon's contract fulfilled?

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, thank you, member for Heysen. I need from the member for West Torrens a budget reference for that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Budget Statement, page 86, table 5.11, Renewal SA FTEs, sir.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous answers, where I stated that the terms and conditions of Mr Hanlon's contract will be complied with.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not asking about the terms and conditions. I am advised there is a clause within Mr Hanlon's contract—I am happy to be corrected by the minister if it is incorrect—that Mr Hanlon would have had to have given notice six months ago as to whether he was going to seek reappointment or not, or that the Premier would have given notice to Mr Hanlon six months in advance that he would not reappoint him. Did either of those things occur?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think the member is making an assertion and assumption in his question that is not necessarily true. Again, I gave the answer that the terms and conditions of Mr Hanlon's contract would be complied with, and that is my answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: While we are here in estimates, my office has received three phone calls from people purporting to be employees of Renewal SA telling my office that Mr Hanlon was on full pay while on leave; is that true?

Mr ELLIS: That is a question about phone calls that his office has received.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Congratulations!

Mr ELLIS: It is not in the budget paper at all, phone calls that your office received.

The CHAIR: Member for Narungga, if you wish to raise a point of order, you need to seek the call. I have allowed the question because it still related to table 5.11. The minister, I am sure, will be able to respond to that.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous answers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to go to HomeStart Finance now. I refer to Budget Paper 5, under housing sector package, interest-free deposit gap loan, on page 12. The government announced, ostensibly, a $104.5 million housing stimulus package in the budget. Can the minister confirm that $60 million of the stimulus package relates to the HomeStart Finance interest-free deposit gap loan?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The $60 million relates to new lending: that is the total sum of new lending.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So it is a loan? Is it part of the loan portfolio of HomeStart Finance?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: They are loans that will be held with HomeStart, yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What is the actual cost of that loan package to the government in real terms?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: As I said, the total new lending is $60 million. I refer the member further down the page to the second to last paragraph:

In line with accounting standards, the difference between the total value of interest free deposit gap loans (estimated to be $2 million over two years)—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So the cost to the government of this proposal is $2 million?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The government is investing $2 million; is that correct?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is not $60 million?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is $60 million worth of new lending. The point being made here is that the opportunity to be able to stimulate new build comes from the total value of the lending. There have been a number of—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But government is not investing $60 million? I only have 10 minutes, and it might take nine minutes to get this answer, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Let's give the minister the opportunity to answer.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to my previous answer. This $2 million will stimulate $60 million worth of new lending. That new lending will go into building around 80 new homes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Eighty new homes; is that correct?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am reading from the budget papers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What you are saying is that the impact of this $60 million program is the building of 80 new homes; is that correct?

The CHAIR: That is what it says in the budget paper, I think.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am just trying to clarify that.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer the member to page 12 of Budget Paper 5. It states:

It is estimated that these loans could leverage around $60 million in new lending. This includes $28 million in new construction lending to build around 80 new homes and around $32 million in lending for established properties leading to around 120 housing outcomes for those struggling to buy an established property.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Minister, I draw your attention to Budget Paper 5, page 12, housing sector package, interest free deposit gap loan. Can you outline—and I will add the word 'briefly'—what modelling was conducted for this program to indicate those proposed outcomes?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: HomeStart has had since 2011 something called a Wyatt Loan, which, in conjunction with the Wyatt foundation, provides money to cover deposits up to $10,000. It helps people to be able to access finance for the balance. HomeStart has been offering the Wyatt Loan to the market since that time. Essentially, the package we have outlined here provides for an extension of a loan that is extremely similar in its type with money that has been provided by government. It is a loan product that is well understood by HomeStart Finance. They have used lived experience over the past eight years to understand how this product operates in the marketplace.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will go to Budget Paper 3, page 84, HomeStart Finance loan programs under public financial corporations. Minister, in this year's budget papers I understand that the government has a policy where public financial corporations are required to pay 100 per cent of their dividends into government. Will that have any impact on HomeStart's capacity to provide loans or to extend the program should the program be successful and have more loan applications?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The answer is no. The 100 per cent dividend policy will not impact on HomeStart's ability to lend out money.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Minister, can you advise whether your office or HomeStart Finance has received any correspondence or communication from any party highlighting concerns about the operations of the low-deposit loan scheme, and, if so, what concerns have been raised?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We are not aware of any correspondence, no.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There has been no correspondence or communication from any party regarding the time taken by HomeStart Finance to approve loan applications and the possible implications of any delayed approvals or refusals?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There have been a very limited number of cases where people have written to me in relation to time taken to process individual loan applications, certainly, but those things are undertaken in the normal course of ministerial correspondence.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The next question would be: what has been the impact of those delays on either the purchaser or the seller?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In each individual circumstance the outcome will be different, but again in every one of those circumstances I have been comfortable in the response that HomeStart Finance has provided as to why things are undertaken in the way that they are and that the policies and procedures in place are being adhered to.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Minister, are you or any of your officers in HomeStart Finance aware of whether loans under the scheme are being offered whereby homebuyers' land-only contracts have been rolled into housing construction loans and offered a nine month non-repayment condition without negotiating a new settlement date with a land developer?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I will ask John to provide the answer.

Mr OLIVER: Can I ask for the question to be repeated for me so that I can give you a precise answer?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am assuming I can get one more question after this one, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, through you to the minister and to his officer: minister, are you aware of any loans under this scheme being offered whereby homebuyers' land-only contracts are being rolled into housing construction loans and offered a nine-month no repayment condition without negotiating a new settlement date with a land developer?

Mr OLIVER: In terms of this scheme, are you talking about the deposit gaps product, or are you just talking about HomeStart's standard lending?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am happy to talk about any program where you offer a loan or some sort of financial support.

Mr OLIVER: HomeStart has an arrangement with about 15 local builders to provide what we call a structured construction loan. Part of our construction loan product is that we allow a borrower not to have to make any repayments during nine months. It is the standard product that has been in place for many, many years. We make no arrangements specifically with the builder or the land developer: our arrangements are solely with the borrower.

Any arrangements in terms of settlement dates, completion of construction, are for the borrower and the developer to come to an agreement on. HomeStart simply funds the loan, ensuring that the loan meets all the criteria that we would have to make under responsible lending standards.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As a follow-up question, minister, have you or your office or HomeStart Finance received any advice on any financial effect this delayed settlement on land sales is having on developers and is expected to have in the future, particularly under the government's changes to land tax aggregation laws?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think that question—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I am asking for your agency's understanding or knowledge, not what the Treasurer is doing. What I am asking is: has your agency been made aware or had brought to its attention the impact its behaviour may have in terms of these loans, combined with the proposed aggregation laws, on the price of land and also developers? I am asking for your agency's knowledge; that is it.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, your reference for that question?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Same reference—Budget Paper 3, page 84, public financial corporations.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The policy changes in relation to aggregation are outlined in this budget in the broad. As the Treasurer has outlined, we are in the process of consulting on those proposed changes. There will be further outcomes and further decisions taken in relation to that matter.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That was not my question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is difficult to provide an answer to that question based on a hypothetical without the final detail of the proposed aggregation changes being negotiated.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can I put it this way and not make it hypothetical: what correspondence or communication has the minister, his office or HomeStart Finance received from any developers or property developers regarding their concerns about these loans and the possible impact of any aggregation tax?

The CHAIR: That is a very broad question, member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is actually quite specific.

The CHAIR: I understand that, but—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They either know something or they do not know something. That is the question.

The CHAIR: Well, you asked about correspondence and we have reached the allotted time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am waiting for an answer.

The CHAIR: This will be your final question. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am advised that the agency has not had any correspondence in relation to land aggregation.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Or any communication?

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for HomeStart Finance and the Urban Renewal Authority completed.