Estimates Vote

South Australian Tourism Commission, $69,285,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $266,003,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $9,289,000

Premier, other items, $5,426,000

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Harrex, Chief Executive, South Australian Tourism Commission.

Ms S. Rozokos, Chief Financial Officer, South Australian Tourism Commission.

Ms H. Rasheed, Executive Director, Events South Australia, South Australian Tourism Commission.

Mr A. Kirchner, Chief Executive, Adelaide Venue Management.

Ms M. Hannaford, Chief Financial Officer, Adelaide Venue Management.

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

The CHAIR: Good morning, all. Estimates Committee A has reconvened by order of the house to further re-examine the remaining proposed payments in the Appropriation Bill 2020.

The committee will now resume examination of the following proposed payments that were postponed on 18 November. I refer members, the Premier and advisers to my opening statement on 18 November. I remind members that all questions should be directed through the Chair and must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination. The portfolios open this morning will be the South Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide Venue Management and the Adelaide Convention Bureau. The minister appearing is the Premier. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Premier to make an opening statement if he wishes and please introduce his advisers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Can I begin by thanking the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition for allowing us to postpone the estimates committee, which was originally scheduled for my examination last week, due to the Parafield cluster. I am very grateful for that offer and we are very grateful that, when we did provide what we needed to do, the opposition was extraordinarily accommodating.

Today, I have sitting next to me Rodney Harrex, the Chief Executive of the South Australian Tourism Commission. Directly behind him is Hitaf Rasheed, the general manager of Events South Australia. Opposite Hitaf is Stephanie Rozokos, who is the chief financial officer. Later, if we are required to, we have Anthony Kirchner, the Chief Executive of Adelaide Venue Management, and Marie Hannaford, the CFO of AVM.

By way of an opening statement, can I just say this has been an extraordinary year and I am very grateful to all the people who work within the SATC—the chief executive, the executive team and all the employees, as well as the chairman and the board—for being very nimble and working to optimise a situation which is, I think by any determination, quite extraordinary, starting the year with bushfires and then moving directly into COVID.

Can I also thank Anthony Kirchner and his team at Adelaide Venue Management. Again, it is a similar scenario. These are extraordinary situations, and the fact that they have been able to pivot and optimise the situation for the taxpayers of South Australia is nothing short of outstanding, and I thank them all for their contribution this year.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Premier. Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to make an opening statement?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Only to thank the executives the Premier has introduced for your attendance today and also to put on the record my thanks and parliamentary Labor Party's thanks for all the hard work that has been undertaken in a pretty unique set of circumstances.

The CHAIR: Excellent, thank you. Questions, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 115, program 2. When was the decision made to axe the Adelaide 500 event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the exact date, but it was around the time that we made the announcement. We received a unanimous recommendation from the SATC board. I know this was an issue they had been grappling with for some time. As the leader would appreciate, we were coming towards the end of the contract that existed with Supercars. We had next year's race to go, but beyond that there was no contract in place.

There was a lot of work which was, in the first instance, put into delaying the race from early next year to later next year, but when we thought that was impractical we made a decision not to proceed with a street circuit for 2021. At the same time, we made a decision that we would not be renegotiating that contract thereafter.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In terms of the time line around that decision, when the government provided notice to the media of its decision to cancel the Adelaide 500, when were Supercars advised of the decision to cancel?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They were advised immediately before we made the announcement. I think it was the night before the official announcement was made. We wanted to inform the people of South Australia as soon as possible, so we thought it was appropriate to make that announcement as soon as Supercars had been made aware of our intention not to hold a race in 2021 and not to renegotiate an agreement for the street circuit beyond 2021.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the Tourism Commission investigate cancelling or moving the Adelaide 500 from the street circuit early last year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, could you just ask that question—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the Tourism Commission investigate cancelling or moving the Adelaide 500 event from its street circuit early last year? Did it investigate that proposition early last year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What I can say is that we have known that this current contract comes to an end. I was involved in discussions with people from Supercars at the events I have been at since I became the Premier of South Australia. We knew that this deadline was coming up. We are very keen to keep Supercars in South Australia. In fact, this year, incredibly—2020, a very difficult year—we have actually had three Supercars events in South Australia: one with our street circuit earlier in the year and two at The Bend later in the year.

We would like to continue to have Supercars come to South Australia. This is something that I have recently spoken to Shane Howard about. We would like to see Supercars coming back to The Bend, and I think that there have been useful discussions around that option.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the Tourism Commission seek legal advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office early last year regarding moving or cancelling the Adelaide 500?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the Crown Solicitor's Office advise the Tourism Commission that, if the Adelaide 500 was cancelled or moved, there would be a high risk of legal action and substantial damages?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of that, but again I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can the Premier confirm that the sanction fee (i.e. the payment to Supercars for the 2021 race) was $2.75 million?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information and I do not know whether we make that amount known but, if we do, then I am happy to take that question on notice and come back to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Chief Executive of the SATC able to confirm that the sanction fee was $2.75 million for the 2021 race?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure whether we make that generally known publicly. I am advised that that is not publicly disclosed. It has not been the practice of the SATC in the past.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the Premier or the chief executive now confirm what the cost of running the Adelaide 500 is all-up to the taxpayers of South Australia?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Of course, that varies, depending on the situation. There is a cost to actually put on the event and that obviously varies. The total costs associated with putting on that event have been escalating over recent years, but that is not the net cost to the taxpayers because coming in is revenue against that total cost: general admission ticket sales, corporate ticket sales and sponsorship. As the leader would be aware, that has been reducing while total costs have been increasing in recent years.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What was that net cost for the race in 2019?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure that we have published that in that detail. I am not sure that is something we provide generally to the public, but I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But if it is a cost to the South Australian taxpayer, there is a net cost to the South Australian taxpayer. We are not talking about the amounts being paid to the Supercars per se. I am not asking for that detail acknowledging your earlier answer, but presumably how much it costs to run the race. Let me put the question another way. Does the SATC know how much it costs to run the race?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, but for the same reasons that the previous government—a government that you were a cabinet minister in did not publish what the total costs were to have various concerts or events in South Australia—did not publish what the TDU was costing. We keep those matters confidential, because by putting that information out I think that it diminishes our ability to negotiate going forward. That has been the practice of the government under both major parties.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I am not asking about the cost of a particular concert. I am not asking about the cost to Supercars here: I am asking about the net cost of hosting an event factoring in all of the variables that you mentioned earlier, like revenue and so forth.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have given my answer. I can elaborate further by saying that net cost to the taxpayers continued to very significantly increase in recent years and, further to that, the compounding factor with regard to where we were going forward was that we thought that the costs associated with running events next year would significantly increase again, and any independent analysis of what would happen with revenue would demonstrate that that would significantly diminish, because we know that we cannot hold events with 200,000 people.

Sir, as you would be more than aware, if you are going to have increasing costs, if you are going to have significantly diminishing revenue, the net cost to the taxpayers is going to significantly increase. The SATC executive and board considered this information. Let me tell you, it was an agonised decision.

We have had great support for the Supercars street event in South Australia over an extended period of time. This has been a great event for South Australia, but the SATC board formed a unanimous view that this did not offer the right return for the taxpayers going forward during this period of very increased uncertainty, and so made that recommendation to the government, which we accepted with regret.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might return to that particular response in just a moment, but what is the expected cost of cancelling the Supercars event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information, and I think that it would be subject to a negotiation with Supercars as to what happens in South Australia going forward.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have made a decision to cancel the event because of supposed rising costs, but you will not disclose what those costs are. You made a decision to cancel the event because of rising costs without knowing what the cost is of cancelling the event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We knew what the cost of going ahead with the event was going to be, and it did not offer a return to the taxpayers that anybody on the SATC board thought was appropriate.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So how does paying a cost to cancel the event—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, I was just finishing my answer. What we know is that there is a negotiation underway at the moment with Supercars, but I do not have anything to report on that. Certainly, that negotiation is ongoing and has not been finalised.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just to be clear, then, you made a decision to cancel an event because of cost without knowing what the cost is of cancelling the event?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What we knew was that the cost to the taxpayers going forward was going to significantly increase. It was going to be significantly larger in future years, and the SATC board felt that, despite the fact that there may be some costs with exiting the contract, it was much better to do that and to apply that money to maximise the number of people employed in South Australia.

What they did was give a very clear recommendation that, instead of having a large and increasing sum of money concentrated on one four-day event early in the year, what they wanted to see happen was that money ring-fenced and applied to the Leisure Events Bid Fund and applied throughout the year.

So what we would see, especially during this initial COVID period, is a movement away from one large event to a very much larger number of smaller events that could accommodate more employment in South Australia. The independent analysis that was done on the employment effects of Supercars was showing over a period of time that the employment outcomes were diminishing. I think the most recent event that was held earlier this year had an employment figure of 353 full-time equivalents. The board did not feel that this was in any way in line with the expenditure that the taxpayers were making, and so they felt that if they could apply that to a larger number of events over the year they could increase that number.

I must also recount to the committee that I have run into people who were suppliers, many of them very disappointed that the Supercars is not going ahead, and we understand that. Most importantly, they said, 'You've got to make sure that we have more events that can employ us throughout the year.' In fact, one contractor said, 'To be quite honest, because this was such a large event, a lot of the contractors came from interstate because we just didn't have that capacity in South Australia.' So we hope to be maximising the return to South Australian businesses and South Australian employees by the redeployment of this money to the new strategy that we have.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who made the final decision to cancel the Adelaide 500? Was it the board of the SATC, was it the chief executive of the SATC or was it the minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. Ultimately, it was a matter I took to cabinet. We were kept informed by the deliberations of the board with regard to this because, as I pointed out, this was a renegotiation that we always knew was coming. I kept cabinet informed about the development, but ultimately it was a unanimous recommendation from the SATC, and we accepted that recommendation.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You could have chosen to save the Adelaide 500. If it was ultimately your decision and the cabinet's decision, you could have chosen to keep the event, invest in the event and grow the event.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For the reasons that I have outlined, I am putting employment outcomes and South Australian contractors first. I think that there would have had to have been some very significant changes that we made to accommodate an increasing cost going forward. We knew how much it had cost us in the past; as I said, the net cost of that was increasing. The cost of it going forward would increase substantially more. I am not really sure what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting—a further budget allocation or maybe just cutting out other really important programs.

Our focus is on delivering our state tourism and visitation strategy. We plan to significantly increase the number of visitors and the size of that market. When we came into government and when we released this strategy, which is one of our nine key growth state strategies, we started with a visitor economy around the $7.6 billion mark. A year after we released that, we were up to $8.1 billion, and our plan is to get that to $12.8 billion by 2030, creating 16,000 new jobs.

We are not going to do that, we are not going to achieve that, we are not going to create the 16,000 jobs if we do not apply our finite capital to those programs that are going to have the maximum employment and visitation return for South Australia. It is a difficult situation with regard to COVID-19. Nobody says that we are jumping for joy with the decision that we have had to make, but I think it is a reasonable recommendation from the SATC board and it is one that we have accepted.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can the Premier name one single event that has been announced since the decision to cancel the Adelaide 500 that is going to replace it, just one event that you have announced since the decision to cancel the Adelaide 500?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So where are those 350 people who are now out of work going to work next year if they are in the event sector? The decision you have articulated was being made to grow jobs. You have acknowledged that there were 353 full-time equivalent jobs working on that project, which is down on the year prior but not because of the decline of the popularity of the event because we know that the Supercars is growing in popularity.

So the decision has been made to effectively sack 353 full-time equivalent jobs—last year it was over 400—with no announcement of any event to replace it. Where are those people going to work if they are looking to you to announce new events?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to provide the Leader of the Opposition with some response to that. For starters, the original 353 was occurring at the beginning of the year. The very best scenario was that we were going to hold it at the end of next year, so I think we have plenty of months between now and the end of next year to announce and deliver our new event and leisure bid strategy for South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are we delivering any new events before the end of next year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would really like to continue and provide my response.

The CHAIR: Leader, you have asked your question and the Premier is answering.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: One thing we have announced just in the last week is that we have reached a good outcome for South Australia with Tennis Australia in regard to the Adelaide International. That is now locked in for a 10-year period, and I think that is a great result for the people of South Australia. This was an event which we secured coming to Adelaide when we came to government. It is a fantastic event, a WTA and ATP event.

I think we all could see this was something that could grow and grow and grow, and in the most recent budget we announced approximately $44 million to go to an upgrade of the Memorial Drive precinct, which will be used not just for the Adelaide International but for other tennis events and other broader events which can be allied to tourism and the arts.

In addition to that, since coming to government we have announced that we would bring a new winter festival to South Australia. This is something I spoke about earlier in the year. Adelaide Illuminate will be held in the middle of next year, and we think this will create additional jobs in South Australia. We have seen these winter festivals, in particular in Tasmania and New South Wales, be absolutely fantastic in driving interstate visitation, and we are hopeful this is going to be very successful.

In addition to that, we have now appointed an advisory group to provide expert advice to the SATC in putting together that program. We are seeking submissions from different groups right across the state to give us their innovative ideas for what we can be doing. Do not forget we have been in this situation before. When the Australian Grand Prix moved from South Australia to Victoria, there was a hole in our program and we formed a similar group to the one we have formed this time, and it provided advice to the government of the day.

Coming from that, we have had some great successes, including the Supercars, the Tour Down Under, Tasting Australia and a range of other events. I feel very confident working with this new group, which is chaired by Nikki Govan, who is also chair of Business SA. We will come up with a calendar of events that will achieve greater employment outcomes and spread those events across the year.

Some of those events, of course, will be motorsport events. We know that people in South Australia love motorsport and we know that we have a fantastic facility at The Bend. I am told that it is one of the best tracks in the world and one of the safest tracks in the world. I think that there are many opportunities for us to bring motorsport events to South Australia, whether they be bikes or vehicles, or I have even seen—and I know the member for Hammond is very interested in this—trucks and utes. I was not familiar with this particular element of motorsport, but he assures me that it is extraordinarily popular where he comes from, Coomandook.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How much money has the government allocated to finding and hosting these new events that are going to replace the Adelaide 500?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have said that from next year all money that was previously allocated to this would be ring-fenced and put into the general events and tourism bid fund. In addition to that, you would have noticed in the budget we announced another $27 million going into this Leisure Events Bid Fund over the next five years, so a massive increase which will be applied, rather than to one event, to a number of events throughout the year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How much money has been ring-fenced and put into that fund?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information at hand. I will come back to you with that information. I think it would be better for me to provide that on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Because the piece of paper in front of you has embarrassing information or because you do not want to answer the question? The whole premise of the policy position of the government is to ring-fence the money. Presumably, you know how much that is.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just the way that it has been presented to me is in a total, which includes the money that has been ring-fenced plus what was existing in the Leisure Events Bid Fund plus the new money which is coming in, but I am happy to provide the detail for you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In the normal course of responding to this estimates process.

The CHAIR: Which, leader, will be 5 February for estimates questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just so that I understand, is there anybody from SATC present today who knows how much money has been allocated in terms of that ring-fencing exercise? With respect, Premier, this is a pretty fundamental question and a fundamental point.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The total I have here for next year, in the total for the Leisure Events Bid Fund, which is the information I have been provided, is $24.8 million. There is also some work that we provide for sponsorship. The total budget for 2022-23 is $26.4 million. There is some complexity to that because, of course, some events have already been allocated money even though they are quite some time out. It is not hand to mouth with these because some of these events you need to work on for a considerable amount of time. What we do is put in a bid for an event and when that is confirmed it is locked away even though it might be in a future period.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure, but the question is about the amount that the government has ring-fenced. The stated policy of the position of the government, you said today and you have repeated it publicly, is to ring-fence the amount of money expended on the Adelaide 500, and that will now be allocated. I am asking: how much money is that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: All I know is that it is part of that total, but I am happy to take that question on notice. I previously provided that. It is north of $10 million; in fact, it is considerably north of $10 million, but I am happy to provide that detail.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So 'considerably north' could mean double that or a few extra million?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am providing my advice to the committee, and that is my answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I look forward to getting that information. With respect, it does seem truly extraordinary that the whole policy is premised upon a principle of ring-fencing the money from the Adelaide 500 to invest in future events but no-one can tell us what that amount of money is. For all those people in our community who desperately rely on these jobs and the associated economic activity, they would be investing a lot of hope right now that the amount that is being ring-fenced and invested in new events will happen. They would be investing a lot of hope in the government and the commission to know how much money that is, and the fact that we do not, I have to say, does not bode well for the confidence and hope people are investing in the government's policy.

The CHAIR: Leader, the Premier has indicated he will take that on notice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will take that on notice. If you want to make a comparison, the Leader of the Opposition has announced a policy without knowing what the cost will be. He has actually said that he will reinstate the event if he is successful at the next election. He has not provided us with any indication that he has any knowledge whatsoever of what that will cost the taxpayers of South Australia.

What we have said is that we have a very significant uplift in the available Leisure Events Bid Fund going forward, and I think that is providing comfort to the sector. It might not be providing comfort to every, single motorsport fan—and I fully appreciate that—but what is most important to the sector is that we have a dedicated budget, which I have just been through, available for the bidding and running of events. I must say that I am very grateful to the team in Events SA. They have done an extraordinary job in an extraordinary situation. They have had to pivot. Many of the events they run each year are large events which have large crowds and are not COVID safe.

One such example, of course, is the National Pharmacies Christmas Pageant. There was no possible way that that could be run in the normal way, with up to 300,000 people lining the streets. They understood this. National Pharmacies as the major sponsor, a very generous sponsor, understood this. In fact, the people of South Australia understood this. EventsSA did not say, 'Look, this is all too hard. We are just going to cancel.' In fact, they said, 'What can we do to make sure that this goes ahead?'

Although it was a very changed event this year, I think it was a great pivot and that is what we are going to have to see. That is why I am grateful to the public servants who work in this particular area. We are very grateful to all the people within the statutory authority for the effort they are making this year. I know that uppermost in their mind and the mind of the subcontractors is supply into these events, because we do have an obligation to maximise as many jobs as we possibly can.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to the same budget line regarding tourism events and use the Premier's reference to the Christmas Pageant as a segue. As a preface to my question, I acknowledge the hard work done by the SATC to put the pageant on in pretty tricky circumstances. My kids were in bed but we had it on tape, thankfully. It was a good event. From memory, there were approximately 25,000 people at the event.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. My understanding was that the approved capacity was for 25,000 people to attend but, of course, we also broadcast and my understanding is that this audience peaked at 168,000. Yes, there was a smaller number who attended, but I think a large number saw the broadcast.

Again, I want to thank people for putting thought into the way that it would operate so that the viewing product was optimised for people who were at home watching. We did work to bring in some incredible performers, including Hugh Sheridan and Rachael Leahcar. I think there were more than 100 singers who were involved in the overall production. It was very different. I am hopeful we can go back to the previous format, but I think it was a good pivot for this year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many people participated in the expression of interest/ballot process online? Obviously, 25,000 were lucky enough to end up getting a ticket. Obviously, not all the requests could be accommodated, naturally. What was the total number of people who went through the expression of interest process, or however you want to characterise it, online?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have information in regard to how many applied for it, but I know that 20,000 tickets were made accessible via the ballot.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate you might not have the detail of how many people applied or expressed interest and so forth at hand, but are you able to take that on notice?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am very happy to take that on notice. I am also advised that the remainder of the tickets were utilised for a range of purposes including event operations, community groups, commercial partners, pageant participants, corporate hospitality and contingency holdings, as recommended by Adelaide Oval.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That process of applying or expressing interest online, the application process and so forth, was that conducted by SATC or was it done externally?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that it was done through Ticketmaster. The ballot registrations opened at 10 o'clock on Thursday 29 October and closed on Friday 30 October at 10pm and individuals were able to request up to five tickets when they registered.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That registration request process was prior to the ticketing process conducted by Ticketek, and that was done online; that was done through an SATC website, was it not, and then Ticketek did the ticketing? I just want to understand.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I was told Ticketmaster—sorry, you were right and I was wrong: Ticketek.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The ticketing exercise was done by Ticketek?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that both the ballot and the ticketing were administered by Ticketek.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The website where people registered their interest, was that done through the SATC website or a Ticketek website?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that what could happen was that people could go onto the SATC website but were redirected to the Ticketek balloting system. I am advised the ballot system then electronically and randomly selected who would attend the event, with notifications provided to both the successful and unsuccessful registrants.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am trying to understand. Maybe I can make it a bit easier. So Ticketek did the random ballot and the issuing of the tickets—that makes perfect sense—but the process of getting the list of all the people who were interested in going, presumably that data was collated by the SATC website and then passed on to Ticketek to do the ballot and then the ticketing; do I have that right?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am very happy to get a full brief to you on how that process worked, but I do emphasise that, in addition to that process, there was the management of all the volunteers who were involved in the performance, as well as the fact that we did reserve tickets for different community groups. I visited one group visiting from Kangaroo Island who came over with the support of SeaLink and the SATC so they could be there.

I also visited groups that were involved specifically with our emergency services and the CFS to thank them. Obviously, we could not open up to all our wonderful CFS, SES and emergency services volunteers, but we wanted to have a representation. It was pleasing on the night—not that I was there for very long—that I had the opportunity to meet with many of the volunteers who were involved in putting the performance on, as well as the people who came over from Kangaroo Island and volunteers within the CFS and the SES.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: To put some context around that, National Pharmacies, I understand, are the sponsor of the Christmas Pageant and have been for a while. After a family submitted their details to apply for a ticket and then Ticketek did the process—it is a unique process in comparison to previous Christmas pageants, naturally, because everyone just showed up previously—did any of that data or information go to any third party—for example, National Pharmacies?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that there was no provision of that information. I should advise that National Pharmacies were very involved not only from a financial perspective but also in providing a lot of the volunteers. A lot of their staff and customers were offered the opportunity, as they have been with the street pageant, to participate as performers and in different roles.

In addition to that, I was advised on the night by the chairperson of National Pharmacies that they brought along as special guests some of their members of longest standing. It was wonderful to meet some people who had been members for more than 60 years. I met one 93-year-old member who was absolutely delighted to go along to that event.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Excellent. I might move on to a separate item. I refer to Budget Paper 2, page 5, regarding the Great State travel vouchers. As the Premier would be aware, we suggested the government take up a travel voucher scheme, and we were grateful that the Premier again took up a constructive suggestion from the opposition. What was the final number of tourism vouchers redeemed under your Great State travel voucher scheme?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Great State travel voucher scheme was something that was suggested to us by the SATC executive and board. There have been schemes—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Maybe they took up our suggestion; either way, we are very grateful.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I know you want to take credit for everything and, very occasionally, we do get good suggestions from the opposition, so keep them coming. Good, bad or indifferent, we will evaluate them all with great rigour.

Just to be clear, lots of other places have come up with this idea over an extended period of time. We evaluated the response from that and we tailored what we would do here in South Australia around the particular issues we had. We could see that regional travel was doing particularly well. Certainly in some pockets of regional South Australia we were being told that the results for this year were indeed higher than they had been for many, many years, if not forever. We were very pleased with that.

However, we were hearing that earlier in the week there was an opportunity for increased capacity across regional South Australia and suburban Adelaide, but we were really looking to mainly focus our attempts to try to increase the return to accommodation in the CBD, excluding Saturday nights. That was the way this happened—the design, if you like—of this approach.

My understanding is that there were around 50,000 vouchers offered. As you can appreciate, we got information from other jurisdictions about what the redemption rate was in those jurisdictions, and so we set our vouchers at 50,000. In some jurisdictions I think the redemption rate was as low as 10 per cent. In South Australia, it was closer to 50 per cent, and I think in total we had approximately 23,600 redemptions. This compares very favourably with the redemptions of similar voucher systems that have been offered in other jurisdictions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In the context of comparisons with other jurisdictions, is the Premier aware that, I am advised, in the Northern Territory 21,000 out of 26,000 vouchers were redeemed?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. Every jurisdiction has a different approach and, of course, a different market. What I can say is that in this situation it was designed to address the specific issues we had in South Australia, and I have had overwhelming support from the sector with regard to the Great State voucher. We will continue to look at these opportunities for interventions based upon need going forward.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Given that presumably there are unallocated funds, or funds that were not expended though otherwise allocated to the 50,000 vouchers, has the tourism commission started planning another round or the next round of Great State vouchers? Is it going to expand the scope, given the less than 50 per cent take-up rate of the first round?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just to be clear, and further to my answer to the previous questions on this line, we factored into our costing that we would not achieve the full 50,000. It was not as if we factored in that gross amount, but the leader is right that there is some money allocated to this that was not taken up. Our commitment at the time was that this would be put into other programs that would be put in place in the new year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I might move on, given the time, to Budget Paper 5, page 122, and the departmental efficiency measures, which are $10 million of cuts over four years. How can the agency—this is SATC—which has approximately100 FTEs or thereabouts, make efficiency dividends or savings to the tune of $2.5 million per annum without also cutting marketing or events or other tourism development programs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I addressed this earlier, but I am happy to go through it again. For starters, each government agency needs to make their contribution towards the overall efficiency target for the government. What I can say with regard to tourism, though, when we look at the actual expenditure for last year, is it was higher than the budget. I think we have a track record where, if we need to make further investments outside of that budget, we will.

But we do need to look for ongoing efficiency. As a government, we focus on outputs. Some governments focus on inputs and they beat their chest about how much money they are putting into something. As Liberals and, as this Liberal government believes, we have to focus on outputs—outcomes for employment, outcomes in terms of increased visitation—and we do need to spend that finite taxpayers' money prudently.

When we have to pivot, we do. One of the points of evidence of this was last financial year when we expended $5.7 million supporting businesses in this sector which were adversely affected by the bushfire and then by the coronavirus. We are very proud of our response in this area and we will continue to apply that focus.

Mr PICTON: I have some questions for the Premier in relation to Adelaide Venue Management. You may want to swap advisers. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 196.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I remind the committee that I am now supported by Anthony Kirchner and Marie Hannaford.

Mr PICTON: Premier, how has it come about that Adelaide Venue Management staff are working in hotel quarantine facilities?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We do not restrict casual employees' work beyond a single site. I am not sure what industrial relations schooling the member has, but a casual employee can choose to work at multiple sites. In fact, a full-time employee can choose in South Australia to take additional work.

Mr PICTON: So there is no work being undertaken by Venue Management directly for the hotels; it would only be casual staff who would have secondary employment there?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We as a government want to do everything we can for our COVID efforts, and I think the member would be more than aware that we have passed a new direction (I can get the details) for a whole-of-government approach. Many people, for example, might be working in a department but might have been redeployed to be part of our effort with regard to COVID, whether it be in the tracing team, whether it be in our control centre team, whether it be in our testing team. We are doing everything we can as a government.

Can I say with regard to Adelaide Venue Management that I was very impressed at how quickly they pivoted to support that COVID need earlier in the year. You might have seen some media, sir, which showed that Adelaide Venue Management were using their considerable capacity and capability to produce meals that were needed at the height of the pandemic in South Australia. In fact, I have been advised that more than 300,000 meals were produced, mainly at the Adelaide Convention Centre I think, and then they were distributed according to need.

Mr PICTON: Are Adelaide Venue Management staff working in their capacity as Adelaide Venue Management staff working in or for medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that that is not the case, no.

Mr PICTON: Is Adelaide Venue Management providing services to medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I am advised that Adelaide Venue Management have been providing meals, and that is an arrangement that was in place up until around 48 hours ago.

Mr PICTON: When did that arrangement start?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will get the exact date, but I am advised that it was put in place the day following the announcement of the stay-at-home order.

Mr PICTON: Who made that request? Presumably a request was made from SA Health?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that is correct.

Mr PICTON: And what was the nature of the work that has been undertaken?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The provision of meals.

Mr PICTON: So that is the only provision of services that has been provided?

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

Mr PICTON: Are those meals being provided in terms of kitchens offsite and delivered in, or is there any work that is being done on site at the medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that during the course of this changed arrangement, the meals were produced within the Adelaide Convention Centre and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre kitchens. They were basically then loaded up and transported to the loading docks of the quarantine hotels, so no staff were involved in the kitchens of the quarantine hotels with regard to the provision of these meals.

Mr PICTON: Were those delivery staff Adelaide Venue Management staff?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that detail, but I am advised yes.

Mr PICTON: Were they given additional training in terms of preparing themselves and making sure PPE and infection control was in place?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. I am advised that all relevant training had been provided.

Mr PICTON: Adelaide Venue Management CEO, Mr Kirchner, wrote an email to staff last Thursday stating:

It has come to AVM's attention that some AVM Event Staff have recently been seconded to work in relatively high-risk workplaces where the coronavirus has been known to be present…

What were those 'high-risk' locations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that some casual staff members of Adelaide Venue Management were also working as casual employees within the hotel quarantine arrangements. I am quick to point out that they were employed not as employees of Adelaide Venue Management seconded to those quarantine hotels. They were just working in their own capacity, and of course they are quite within their rights to do so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So who did employ them then?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I presume they would have been employed by the quarantine hotels themselves because these would have been back-of-house roles.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I just want to clarify that they were not employed by Adelaide Venue Management: they were employed by the hotels themselves?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The hotels themselves, or sometimes they outsourced their services as well, so it could be with a third-party contractor.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What conditions were those employees employed under—the Adelaide Venue Management enterprise agreement or the respective industrial instruments of those other employers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would be a matter for that individual but, as I have pointed out to the committee twice already, they were not doing that work in those quarantine hotels as employees of Adelaide Venue Management. Every casual employee has the ability to seek additional work over and above the casual shifts they have at Adelaide Venue Management. Of course, let's be quite clear: because of the stay-at-home order, the number of shifts that were available to casual employees at Adelaide Venue Management would have reduced significantly.

Dr HARVEY: Point of order: can the honourable member clarify which budget line we are referring to at the moment?

The CHAIR: Yes, we can. My understanding is that it is Budget Paper 4—

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 196.

The CHAIR: —Volume 4, page 196, yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just to be clear, that budget line does not relate to the employment of Adelaide Venue Management staff in the quarantine hotel arrangements.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But it does relate to the employment of Adelaide Venue Management staff, which leads to my final question on this subject.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But, as have I pointed out to the committee now three times, those casual shifts at a quarantine hotel were not as employees of Adelaide Venue Management.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Which goes to my final question on this subject before I hand over to the member for Kaurna: can the government confirm or can Adelaide Venue Management confirm that the Adelaide Venue Management enterprise agreement was not the industrial instrument that informed the conditions under which those employees were paid?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That has no relationship whatsoever to the budget line that we are interrogating at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: With respect, Mr Chairman, that is not right because I am asking specifically around an enterprise agreement to which the government is a party.

The CHAIR: Leader, I would point out that, to any question from any member, the responsible minister, in this case the Premier, can answer as he or she thinks fit.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure, but I am asking for an answer, not a commentary on the question.

The CHAIR: The Premier can answer as he sees fit and I believe he has done that.

Mr PICTON: The email from Mr Kirchner refers to people being seconded to work in high-risk workplaces, which we know now is the Peppers hotel. Were they seconded from Adelaide Venue Management or from another location or other workplace they had?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information, but what I can say is that they certainly were not seconded from Adelaide Venue Management. We have pointed out that they were not employees of Adelaide Venue Management, that employment was in their own right as an employee.

Mr PICTON: Why would Mr Kirchner have said in an email that Adelaide Venue Management event staff have recently been seconded to work in relatively high-risk workplaces?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have provided clarity to that.

Mr PICTON: Have any of the people who have been working for the medi-hotel then come back to work for Adelaide Venue Management at any Adelaide Venue Management location within 14 days?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised no.

Mr PICTON: Mr Kitchner's emails to staff expressed some concern that he was not aware whether people had been working in those high-risk workplaces. Is Adelaide Venue Management now assured that they know the entirety of all staff who worked in the Peppers hotel or other high-risk workplaces?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think most employers in South Australia would be very concerned, especially during this heightened period of focus, about where casual employees might also be working and I think that Mr Kirchner expressed that, but we are reliant on people coming forward to provide that information.

Mr PICTON: Can you assure the committee that no Adelaide Venue Management staff members have worked in the Convention Centre or the Entertainment Centre or any other state government facilities and have worked in the Peppers hotel in the past two weeks?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What I can say is that there have been some casual employees who have worked within that hotel environment. I can also say, as we have repeatedly said in recent days, that there is a very good testing regime around all those people who have been working in that hotel quarantine environment and, as Mr Kirchner has said, none of the people who have been working there have come back to work at AVM at this point.

Mr PICTON: Have all those staff been tested?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that information and I am not sure which budget line you are referring to.

Mr PICTON: Mr Kirchner also stated in an email that he identified that an AVM event staff member was wearing an AVM uniform while working for an employer in a high-risk location. Was that high-risk location where they were wearing an AVM uniform the Peppers hotel?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is yes.

Mr PICTON: Has any disciplinary action been taken in relation to that staff member?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure it is a hanging offence to wear the incorrect uniform to work. I am not sure which laws you are referring to or wish to introduce to the parliament. I do not see this as a hanging offence.

Mr PICTON: I am happy to help you in reference to Mr Kirchner's email. He stated:

Apart from the fact that this employee had stolen the uniform, it is also totally unacceptable for a person to wear an AVM uniform whilst working for another employer.

He further stated that all employees 'need to strictly comply with AVM's uniform policy'. I would suspect that there is, potentially, both a breach of criminal law in an allegation of stealing a uniform and a breach of the AVM uniform policy.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is all very interesting, but what is your question?

Mr PICTON: The question is: has any disciplinary action been taken in regard to the person?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr PICTON: Are you familiar with AVM's uniform policy?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I have not worked at AVM.

Mr PICTON: Have you had a briefing in relation to the staff member?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr PICTON: What is the total income that AVM has derived so far for its work in medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to take that question on notice and come back with an answer.

Mr PICTON: Is there a contract in place between AVM and SA Health for the work in medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. I am advised that, no, there is not.

Mr PICTON: This is a genuine query as to how that arrangement works if there is no contract in place.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to take that question on notice and come back with a detailed answer.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, we have reached the allotted time, and there being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the South Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide Venue Management and the Adelaide Convention Bureau complete.