Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $201,545,000

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $4,672,000

Membership:

Mr Pederick substituted for Mr Murray.

Minister:

Hon. D.K.B. Basham, Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms M. Edge, Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Prof. M. Doroudi, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr D. Humphrys, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody, to Estimates Committee A. Given that we have a new minister—welcome, Minister for Primary Industries—I need to make some opening remarks. The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change in departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings, previously distributed, is accurate?

Mr HUGHES: Yes.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the 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 February 2021.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of up to about 10 minutes each should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced.

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper. 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. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions should be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within Parliament House, via the webstream link to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination, the portfolio being the Department of Primary Industries and Regions. The minister appearing is the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. The estimate of payments is for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions and Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I call on the minister to make a statement if he wishes and to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you, Chair. It is my pleasure to provide information about programs and work conducted by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions in relation to the 2020-21 state budget. I would like to introduce members of the department who are accompanying me today. To my right, is the deputy chief executive, Mehdi Doroudi, and behind me is the chief executive officer, Michelle Edge, and the chief financial officer, Darren Humphrys.

Before answering your questions today, I would like to provide a brief opening statement. As we are all aware, it has been a tough period for not only our primary producers but also the regional communities they heavily rely on. Bushfires, drought and COVID-19 restrictions have provided many challenges. In the face of these challenges they have stood firm and continued to produce some of the world's best food, wine and fibre. I would like to commend the department for its outstanding work in responding to these events, providing critical support to primary producers and communities and then working with them through recovery.

In response to drought, we provided a $21 million support package, including rebates, grants, financial and farming advice, and an expansion of the Farm and Business (FaB) Support Program, and enhanced wild dog management. We have supported more than 350 bushfire-affected primary producers across South Australia via our Primary Producers Bushfire Recovery Rebate following last summer's devastating fires.

COVID-19 has brought about issues, such as border restrictions, worker shortages and falling tourism in our regions. While it is important to respond to the challenges our producers and community faces, industry also grasped opportunities working side by side with the Marshall Liberal government. As part of the Growth State initiative, we launched the Food, Wine and Agribusiness Plan aiming to grow revenue to $23 billion by 2030.

We worked with the parliament to give our farmers on mainland South Australia the choice to cultivate genetically-modified food crops if they wished, and the biggest reform in the history of the Marine Scalefish Fishery is underway. We released an AgTech Strategic Plan—an investment in a new approach to value add to our research farms by showcasing technology. The $25 million dog fence rebuild is now in stage 2, supporting local jobs and businesses.

Finally, the Regional Growth Fund continues to be delivered with a once-off $25 million Regional Growth Fund—Strategic Business Round targeting COVID-19 shovel-ready projects. This is just a snapshot of what the Marshall Liberal government has achieved over the past year. I thank industry, our regions and all those in the department for their dedication and commitment to delivering on key priorities over the past year. I look forward to questions relating to the budget papers. Thank you.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Member for Giles, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Mr HUGHES: No, I do not wish to.

The CHAIR: Does the deputy leader wish to make an opening statement?

Dr CLOSE: No. I think I am the lead speaker, but it really does not matter. It is fine.

Members interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: We are not quarrelling even slightly. Given that neither of us wants to make an opening statement, it does not matter.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Imagine having to call order already. Never mind. Questions.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you, and thank you for your opening statement, minister. If we go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, on page 67 there is reference to the Regional Growth Fund and funding 10 initiatives in the competitive pool and four in the strategic pool as part of the highlights. Of course, on page 68 there is the table that relates to grants and subsidies, which includes the Regional Growth Fund. I have some questions that relate to that. For 2019-20, the allocation for the Regional Growth Fund was $15 million. Can you confirm that that is the case?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, that is correct.

Dr CLOSE: My understanding from not only various bits of research in the papers but also outside is that, of that $15 million in 2019-20, approximately $6.5 million was spent across those two funds; is that correct?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I may refer to my adviser to give the detail.

Mr HUMPHRYS: The actual expenditure for the Regional Growth Fund and Regional Development Fund was $9.5 million in grant payments.

Dr CLOSE: You said $9.5 million?

Mr HUMPHRYS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: In 2019-20?

Mr HUMPHRYS: Correct.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, there is the 2019-20 actual, so the line on page 68 that refers to grants and subsidies is only referring to the Regional Growth Fund then? There are no other grants and subsidies comprising that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We would need to check that and come back to you.

Dr CLOSE: At a later date? You are taking that on notice?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We will try to get an answer before the end of the session.

Dr CLOSE: Even better—thank you very much. That line goes from an actual in 2019-20 of $9.5 million up to a budget of $51 million. What is the explanation for that big leap?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Putting a bit of context around it, prior to the election the government made a commitment to invest $150 million over 10 years into the Regional Growth Fund to support economic development opportunities in regional South Australia. The government delivered on this commitment in its first budget. In this budget, the government has delivered a further $10 million on top of that, taking the 10-year commitment to $160 million.

The Regional Growth Fund has two components: a competitive pool, which is available through a single competitive round; and a strategic pool of funding for regional economic growth projects, which allows regions certainty. They can approach government at any time with worthy projects for assessment against program criteria. Round 3 was opened earlier in the previous year to provide economic stimulus in the wake of the devastation of bushfire, drought and impacts from the coronavirus.

As COVID impacts are ongoing, the government also announced a once-off $15 million Strategic Business Round, which was open to individuals and businesses. This is one way the government is backing business to create jobs and opportunities and help the government with the recovery of COVID-19. To date, 16 projects have been announced from these two rounds, with 13 projects being funded from the once-off stimulus round of the Regional Growth Fund and three projects being funded from round 3.

Dr CLOSE: Looking at the table on page 68 and grants and subsidies, we have just talked about the $9.5 million that is the 2019-20 actual, and we will see if we can confirm if all that was Regional Growth Fund, and if we track back along that line 2018-19 is an actual of $11.5 million. I presume that that would have been budgeted at least $15 million, which is the Regional Growth Fund amount, and therefore there was a shortfall. For the next year, there is a budget of $30 million, which implies that it is more than just the Regional Growth Fund, but an actual of $9.5 million. For the $51 million that is now being budgeted for 2020-21, what portion of that is in fact underspend from previous years that have been rolled in?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The carryover figure was $10.7 million from those two different components.

Dr CLOSE: Is it the intention of the government and the department to fully expend it each year? What was the reason for not spending as much as $15 million in 2018-19 and 2019-20?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will ask Mr Humphrys to respond.

Mr HUMPHRYS: The guidelines of the fund established that the payments to the proponents are made on a reimbursement basis once they have reached milestones. The $15 million is being allocated to projects, and then it is subsequent to them being completed or reaching the milestones that largely causes the delay. Those moneys are not reimbursed until there is proof of the project reaching the milestone it needs to.

Dr CLOSE: So the carryover is, in fact, an allocated carryover. Although you carry it over into the $51 million, in fact you are not giving $10 million of that away—and I know we are talking largely and not necessarily in precise figures—because largely what has been carried over has already been allocated to the company, but they are not yet able to claim it.

Mr HUMPHRYS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: Excellent, thank you.

Mr HUMPHRYS: I can clarify it for you, if you like. In 2018-19, there was $11.35 million allocated, and in 2019-20 there was $18.65 million allocated. That takes you to the total of $30 million over the two years.

Dr CLOSE: I understand; that is why the budget goes up for 2019-20—because it is carrying allocated but not yet expended funds.

Mr HUMPHRYS: Correct.

Dr CLOSE: I turn now to the less numerical side of this. Who assesses the applications for the Regional Growth Fund? How many people, what entities, what groupings?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The competitive round of the Regional Growth Fund is assessed by a panel with an independent chair. For the 2019-20 competitive round the panel was chaired by Mr Jeff McDonald, a longstanding regional community member in the Riverland who has a background in rural finance. In assessing the projects, all panel members were required to declare and manage any conflicts of interest and treat all information received through the assessment process with confidentiality. For the strategic round, recommendations were made to the Economic and Infrastructure Cabinet Committee.

Dr CLOSE: So the role of the minister is not a decision-maker or is a decision-maker?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The role of the minister is to receive those recommendations and take them to cabinet.

Dr CLOSE: Then cabinet presumably is the decision-maker on the recommendation of the minister.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate you do not talk about what happens inside cabinet. Is there an appeal process? If a business feels it ought to have been successful and was not, is there a process for them to seek—

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: No, there is no appeal process.

Dr CLOSE: What process is used by the department or the minister to ensure that no-one on the panel has any conflict of interest with any particular request made in any particular application?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed it is very much that they must declare all conflicts in their participation in their role. It is dealt with in that normal arrangement.

Dr CLOSE: I understand that the Berri Hotel won a $1.5 million grant in the Strategic Business Round 2020 of the Regional Growth Fund to build an extra 20 rooms and put in some landscaping. Can the minister give feedback on which of the criteria for the round that application met and was therefore supported?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will take that one on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Is it possible to table a list of unsuccessful Regional Growth Fund applicants?

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, could you just repeat that for my benefit.

Dr CLOSE: I have asked if it is possible to table or to take on notice tabling the unsuccessful applicants for this Regional Growth Fund.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That being a cabinet decision, I am not able to, sorry.

Dr CLOSE: One of the outcomes that is being sought with the Regional Growth Fund is of course employment in the regions, and there is an expectation. I think the Premier tweeted that 'we are creating more than a thousand SA jobs by funding key projects across regional South Australia'. Is there any analysis of where those jobs are likely to be and expectations per project of how many jobs are being created?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Every applicant makes an estimation of what full-time jobs are part of their project. That comes in and certainly that is how that number is arrived at. To give any detail to that, we would need to go back and pull all that data back out.

Dr CLOSE: Is there any analysis the minister can provide, I would assume on notice, that would clarify why a thousand jobs was able to be linked to this amount of money? Is there some formula that is used to derive that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That was based on the applications themselves and the projections that those particular applications made and delivered that thousand jobs.

Dr CLOSE: So those thousand jobs are attached—

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order: is there a budget line?

Dr CLOSE: Yes, we are talking about the Regional Growth Fund, which is on—

Mr PEDERICK: Do you have a direct line, please?

Dr CLOSE: —page 67. If you look at highlights, it talks about the Regional Growth Fund that provides broad economic benefit in our regions. I am analysing one element of that, which is jobs growth. Is the thousand estimate attached to the projects that have been applied for already, and considered and presumably approved, rather than a projection of the life of the Regional Growth Fund?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That number was based on the approval of those particular projects.

Dr CLOSE: Is there an expectation within the department that you will check in on whether the claimed jobs that would be attached to those applicants are in fact delivered?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, that will be part of the process going forward. It will be part of the delivery of the project that they must identify where the job creations, etc., are.

Dr CLOSE: I want to turn to another topic, but first I am reminded of something I should have asked at the beginning. For clarity, we have a separate session on ForestrySA; is it a reasonable expectation that I ask all questions associated with forestry in that hour?

The CHAIR: I assume the minister will have his forestry adviser at that session; that would be reasonable.

Dr CLOSE: Is that acceptable to the minister?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, I am happy with that approach.

Dr CLOSE: I just do not want to get there and then be told, 'No, that's not ForestrySA. It's just forestry.' If that is a reasonable working understanding, that is terrific, thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 61. I am turning to GM, just to get your mind turning in that direction while I give the specifics. Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural Services, highlights, refers to the amendments to the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act, which we were all part of passing earlier this year.

This has now been enacted and there has been a process of some councils under the section in the act seeking permission to retain a genetically free status within the council boundary. Did the minister, his staff or any of his advisers or anyone in PIRSA provide any direction to the GM Crop Advisory Committee in relation to its recommendations?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for the question. To secure the passage of the legislation to lift the GM crop moratorium on mainland South Australia, the government, as you stated, agreed with the Labor Party amendments providing local councils a one-off time-limited ability to apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation area. Council applications were required to be made following community consultation and were to provide evidence that being designated non-GM offers value to the council area from a marketing and trade position which could not be achieved by segregation protocols.

Eleven of the 68 councils in South Australia made applications to the minister. As the legislation required, these applications were referred to the independent GM Crop Advisory Committee for advice. The current committee were appointed by the former Labor government and the committee was chaired by former Labor MP the Hon. Anne Levy. The GM Crop Advisory Committee advised me that none of the applications presented sufficient evidence for the committee to recommend designation as areas where growing GM crops is prohibited.

It was the view of the committee that individual business non-GM markets can be maintained, as occurs in other mainland states where GM crops are permitted. As per the act, the minister was required to take into account the advisory committee's advice before decisions were made. The government has accepted the recommendations of the committee. The power to make the final decision on council applications was debated during the passage of the legislation. The decision of the parliament was that the final decision would be made by the minister.

While community concerns voiced through local council consultation are acknowledged, it is important to note that the scope of the act only allows the minister to make a decision based on evidence related to trade and market impacts. Concerns regarding health and environmental impacts are covered under commonwealth legislation.

Both the City of Onkaparinga and the Adelaide Hills councils wrote to the minister formally requesting that the minister reconsider their applications; however, no further evidence was provided. The legislative ability for the minister to declare a council area as a non-GM area expired on 15 November and farmers across mainland South Australia will now have a choice to grow GM crops in time for the 2020-21 grain season. I have been informed that there were no directions given to the committee by PIRSA staff or my office.

Dr CLOSE: I think I understood from what you just said, which I had not previously heard, that two of the councils wrote and asked for a reconsideration after the decision was made. Was there any discussion either between the department and those councils or between your office and the councils about what they might do to change your mind in making that decision? You have said that there was no evidence. Was any evidence asked for or sought, or was any indication of what would work provided, or were they unsolicited letters following the decision that was made?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: They were unsolicited letters.

Dr CLOSE: So the only information that went out to all the councils that applied was a no rather than, 'No, but only because you didn't do this or this and, if you did that, then we would be willing to reconsider.' That was not part of the interaction?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is that the original communication to the councils was very clear. In fact, it was clear from the response from three of the councils that stated they recognised they had no trade or market ability to demonstrate that there was a trade or market benefit within their regions. They recognised that, so it was very clear what was being asked of them. To me, it was already out there for them to understand and meet the requirements.

Dr CLOSE: What modelling, if any, did the state government undertake to examine the potential job losses in the McLaren Vale region as a result of the decision?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: All the work to analyse or assess those applications by the 11 councils was done by the committee. That was done over three meetings they held in the lead-up to making the recommendations to me. They considered 10 applications, and a late application arrived after they had the three meetings, and they considered it out of session. We have sent to the councils the advice and letters that were supplied to me outlining their unanimous decision not to approve.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond is indicating he has a question, and I know he certainly has an interest in this area.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 61, Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural services. Along this line of questioning, minister, could you please explain the positive impact of lifting the moratorium on genetically modified crops and how it will support grain growing regions right throughout South Australia, including Hammond, Giles and Narungga?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As an election commitment, the Marshall Liberal government undertook a high-level, independent expert review of the South Australian moratorium on genetically modified food crops. The review was undertaken by Emeritus Professor Kim Anderson AC, with 216 public submissions received. The reviewer consulted with experts in the field and the GM Crop Advisory Committee.

The review sought evidence from farmers, food producers, supply chain enterprises and the community to quantify whether a GM moratorium provided economic benefit or cost to the state. With the exception of an existing export market for GM free Kangaroo Island grain, the review failed to unearth evidence that South Australian businesses are receiving a benefit from the state's GM free status that could not be secured by truthfully marketing produce as GM free.

The report found no evidence that South Australian grain receives preferential access to GM free markets. It also found that South Australian grain farmers are not receiving a premium for GM free canola compared with farmers in our neighbouring states. It also found the moratorium had cost South Australian grain farmers at least $33 million since 2004 and will cost growers at least another $5 million if it is extended to 2025, harming the state's ability to attract investment in agricultural research and development. The moratorium was found to have discharged public and private investment in agricultural research and development.

Taking into account the evidence before us, the government introduced the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020, which passed the South Australian parliament. To secure passage of the legislation to lift the GM crop moratorium on mainland South Australia, the government agreed to the Labor Party amendment to provide local councils with a once-off time-limited ability to apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation area.

Council applications were to be made following community consultation and were to provide evidence that maintaining a non-GM status offers value to the council area from a marketing and trade position, which could not be achieved by segregation protocols. Eleven of the 68 councils in South Australia made application to be designated non-GM cultivated areas. As required by legislation, these applications were referred to the independent GM Crop Advisory Committee for advice. The committee members decided that none of the applications presented sufficient evidence for the committee to recommend areas to be designated as non-GM cultivation areas.

It was the view of the committee that non-GM markets can be maintained, as occurs in other mainland states where GM food crops are permitted. The minister must, before granting an exemption, consult with the advisory committee and take into account any advice provided by the advisory committee. The government accepted the recommendations of the committee. The lifting of the moratorium is great news for our farmers, and regional communities have long called for the ability to have choice in crop varieties and be on a level playing field with the rest of mainland Australia.

Dr CLOSE: Continuing with the same budget line reference, did the committee, in reaching its decision to make a recommendation not to support the applications, undertake any modelling of job impacts themselves or only take what was presented by the councils and form a judgement about that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It is my understanding that the advisory committee assessed the evidence that was presented to it by the councils in that application process.

Dr CLOSE: After receiving the recommendation from the committee and before making a decision, did you as minister meet with any of the councils that had applied, and I might as well give you the list so that you can answer all at once: Treasury Wines, the McLaren Vale Grape Wine Tourism Association or any other company or organisation involved in asking for the moratorium to continue in their area?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: No, I did not meet with any.

Dr CLOSE: There is a view in some of the areas, in particular in McLaren Vale, that some businesses will be negatively affected by this decision, despite the recommendation that has been made. Has the minister received any requests for compensation or any complaints from those businesses directly asking for consideration about the impact they believe will be felt?

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, I am having a little bit of difficulty hearing. What are they asking for?

Dr CLOSE: Whether the minister has received any letters of complaint, any requests for compensation, in the light of the decision that has been made. I am sorry, I will try to speak up.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is that I am unaware of any correspondence along those lines. I certainly have received, as I stated before, two letters from two of the councils in particular. I do not think I have received any others, but if I have I will let you know. Just going back to the previous question on the Regional Growth Fund, cabinet only approved the strategic business round. Only the other round is solely decided by the minister.

Dr CLOSE: So the strategic is by cabinet and the competitive is by the minister?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The Regional Growth Fund is by the minister and the other is by cabinet.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a pathway for any councils to have this decision overturned? Is there anything that the councils could present to you that might cause a reconsideration of the decision?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The date of 15 November was set in the act. Once that date has passed, there is no ability for that to be reassessed under the current act.

Dr CLOSE: If I can turn to the question of fruity fly—the reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 79—how many expiations have been issued to drivers at Yamba as a result of the government's zero tolerance policy?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for the question. The zero tolerance approach commenced on 21 December 2018 for random road blocks and on 4 January 2019 at Yamba quarantine station. This approach was implemented in response to the declaration of a Queensland fruit fly outbreak in Loxton in early December 2018.

The policy removed the option of relinquishing fruit and vegetables at the Yamba quarantine station. All persons carrying fruit and vegetables on inspection faced a fine. On 6 July 2019, new infrastructure was completed and signed off by SafeWork. The state government funded the upgrade, including additional pull-off areas for investigation when fruit fly host materials are detected, new entry and exit routes, extra office accommodation, and recruitment and training of new staff.

Since January 2019, there have been 19 incidents of fruit fly larvae being found in host material entering South Australia at Yamba station. In total, there have been 10,314 expiation notices that have been issued since the inception of zero tolerance at both seasonal random roadblock operations and the Yamba quarantine station. To date, of those people issued expiation notices, 10  have been summonsed to court and pleaded guilty after electing to have their matter heard in court. The fines and costs associated with guilty pleas range from $600 to $2,000 per defendant. In some cases, convictions were also recorded.

Dr CLOSE: How many appeals have been lodged against those expiation notices?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I said, there were 10 who have chosen to go to court. We also have probably about 20 per cent who request a review and a review is done.

Dr CLOSE: Is the minister able to report on how many have been successful, either at review or in court?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In court, none; all were found guilty by the court. We will have to take on notice how many have actually been withdrawn following review. We do not have that data with us.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. Is South Australia the only fruit fly free state in Australia?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: South Australia is the only mainland state; Tasmania is also.

Dr CLOSE: I understand. How much is the state government proposing to invest in 2020-21 to ensure that we remain fruit fly free?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The extra response is $10.1 million in the current budget.

Dr CLOSE: And what is that directed to?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is for the eradication program.

Dr CLOSE: So that is all about eradication rather than stopping people at the border and fining them and all that process? It is about, if there is fruit fly here, actually eradicating it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That money is. There is also $4 million allocated towards investigation and building of a facility at Ceduna if we find a suitable location. Apparently it is $10.35 million, not $10.1 million, sorry.

Dr CLOSE: No problem.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We have certainly been looking at investing some money at Ceduna. Currently, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions operates the Ceduna quarantine station. That station has been in operation in its current location since 1971. The township of Ceduna has grown around that station and now has significant movements within the township, which makes it problematic as a checkpoint. The government is working through solutions regarding a possible relocation of the Ceduna station further west of the town to enable implementation of zero tolerance there.

The Department for Infrastructure and Transport has undertaken initial survey work to inform project costings and to assist the selection of an appropriate site. As I said, PIRSA has committed $4 million in the current financial year from its existing minor capital works to fund the building works subject to further costs, to be delivered in conjunction with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Dr CLOSE: To return to the $10.35 million being spent in eradication, is that over the forward estimates or just in one year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is for 2020-21.

Dr CLOSE: What is the nature of that expenditure? How much of that is people? How do you get to $10 million in eradicating fruit fly?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is to fund the eradication program over the current outbreaks in the metropolitan area. It represents about 200 staff who have been involved in that project, as well as the operations required to do that.

Dr CLOSE: How many complaints have been made about the lack of signage in relation to the zero tolerance policy over the last year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Of the 20 per cent of people who may make applications, numerous people may complain about signage but, as we have seen particularly with the 10 who have gone to court, there has been no determination that signage is a problem is this regard.

Dr CLOSE: How many complaints have been made about what might be alleged to be the aggressive nature of PIRSA officers when dealing with drivers and passengers?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I guess there are always some complaints about how people are handled, and again I do not think there is any particular issue that we need to be concerned about, as there are complaints when people get fined. They are going to find a reason to do so.

We must note that we are in the midst of the largest fruit fly eradication program the state has ever had to undertake. The eradication of Mediterranean fruit fly from South Australia is of extreme importance not only to fruit and vegetable farmers in the Adelaide Hills and the surrounding parts of the state but also to those who have backyard fruit and vegie patches. Last summer, through to our current winter, we had multiple outbreaks triggered, resulting in over 40 outbreak centres across eight outbreak zones.

The first outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly was declared in Blair Athol and surrounding suburbs on 16 December, as we had confirmation of fruit fly larvae being found in backyard apricots. Following this outbreak, further outbreaks were declared in the Croydon Park area, Angle Park area, Semaphore Park, Pooraka area, Campbelltown and Klemzig area. The Klemzig outbreak was the last to be declared on 5 August, and over 240 suburbs are now in quarantine across the metropolitan area.

The eradication response is going to plan. In five of the eight outbreak areas, we have not had a detection of fruit fly for four months. Only a very low number of detections are being made in the remaining three outbreak areas. As I stated before, the cost of the current government response is expected to be in excess of $10 million this financial year. By far, the largest component is the 200 field staff as they work to eradicate the pest.

I want to thank the people of South Australia for their participation in the response. Residents across the quarantine areas have been assisting in the eradication response. Residents have been picking ripe fruit from trees and off the ground. They have been disposing of the rotten fruit in their green bin, rather than having it in their private compost heaps, and also allowing access for department staff into their backyards to spray organic pesticide.

Residents have also complied with fruit and vegetable movement controls, as part of the quarantine measures. Over 137,000 litres of organic bait has been applied across the eight outbreak areas to control adult Mediterranean flies. Department staff have been out in the quarantine areas assisting residents picking up fallen fruit or stripping fruit from trees at affected sites and undertaking technical checking for the presence of larvae. Over 21,000 kilograms of fruit has been collected as part of those efforts.

A key part of the eradication response has been the release of sterile Mediterranean flies, with over 60 million sterile flies released as part of the response. If we have no further detections, the various outbreaks are due for eradication between late December 2020 and mid-January 2021 if no further flies or larvae are detected. The latest date at this point in time is Blair Athol on 14 January.

Dr CLOSE: Would the minister consider taking on notice the number of complaints that have been received? I appreciate that you cannot be more specific than 'some' here.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There have been very few complaints about staff, I am informed, and the complaints have never been upheld, as there are body cameras and also cameras within the interview rooms that do not show evidence to the contrary.

The CHAIR: I might go to the member for Narungga who has a question.

Mr ELLIS: I would like to take the minister to something I am particularly passionate about and can be found in Budget Paper 3, page 110, under key initiatives to be delivered in 2020-21. Minister, I wonder whether you might inform this committee about the opportunities that exist within the agtech sector and the investment that the government is making in order to facilitate those opportunities and give them an opportunity to prosper.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The Marshall Liberal government sees great adoption of agtech on farm as a real game changer for the primary industry sector, increasing productivity and profitability. That is why we have we formed an AgTech Advisory Group with a key goal to develop a strategic plan for South Australia. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work undertaken by Dr Leanna Read, the independent chair, and the rest of the group.

Last month, I had the pleasure of officially launching the AgTech Strategic Plan at Lot Fourteen, with a full house under COVID restrictions and with a large audience tuned in online. We also announced new regional agtech demonstration farms and startup hubs as part of a $2.4 million investment to begin work on targets in the plan. These initiatives include opening additional agtech demonstration farms at government research sites in Nuriootpa, Turretfield and Minnipa, and on private properties, agtech startup hubs at Struan in the South-East and on Eyre Peninsula, and appointing agtech extension officers.

Increasing the uptake of technology on farm could return up to $2.6 billion per annum to the South Australian economy. It was particularly pleasing that, through the process of putting this plan together, the AgTech Advisory Group, South Australia’s farmers and the agtech community are working closer than ever before. Our farmers and primary producers are some of the most innovative in the world, yet we lag behind in our uptake of agtech. More than 50 per cent of South Australian primary producers are currently not investing in further agtech, and this is a statistic we are setting out to change.

The South Australian AgTech Strategic Plan identifies three key challenges to the adoption of agtech on farm in South Australia, with seven priorities and key actions. The plan also supports the Food, Wine and Agribusiness Growth Sector Plan, which aims to stimulate an ambitious growth agenda to contribute revenue of $23 billion by 2030 to the South Australian economy. A way to increase primary producer production and profitability is to optimise the performance of farming systems. This is best achieved through the adoption of best farming approaches and the application of innovative agriculture technologies—agtech.

The agtech demonstration sites at Struan and Kybybolite research farms in the South-East are part of the best practice demonstration farm, a collaboration with Elders. The farm is applying the latest livestock farming approaches, with targeted agtech product support to provide a best practice farming demonstration to support industry transformation. A demonstration site with agtech products focused on irrigated horticulture is established at the Loxton Research Centre in the Riverland.

The regional centre is also home to ThincLab Loxton, a startup hub that is operating in partnership with the University of Adelaide. Agtech demonstration sites for low rainfall, mixed farming and viticulture are located at the Minnipa Agricultural Centre on Eyre Peninsula and the Nuriootpa Research Centre in the Barossa Valley, respectively. These sites will soon seek agtech product demonstrations through an open expression of interest.

One of the most significant sources of innovation will be from the application of technology, including software and hardware, to the agricultural value chain. We also hosted the inaugural AdvanceAg, with more than 330 people in attendance. That event is happening again, and we expect it to be bigger and better next year. The government is committed to growing the adoption of agtech in South Australia.

Dr CLOSE: To finish up on a couple of questions on fruit fly, is there any proposal to update or alter the signage that is currently at the border about the fruit fly zero tolerance policy?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for the question. I have been informed that the signage was all updated to the current level prior to July 2019. I have travelled up there in my first week of being minister, to look at the signage, and I am very comfortable with the signage that is there.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, what does it take to lose the status of being a fruit fly free state?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will ask my adviser to answer that.

Prof. DOROUDI: Thank you for your question. Through the Chair and minister, for a number of years we have had the issue of fruit fly in South Australia. If we go back more than nearly two decades, we have been able to eradicate every single outbreak that we have had, regardless of whether it has been a Qfly or a Mediterranean fly. What it is going to take is, really, as long as we are prepared to battle and fight with the outbreak and bring the fruit fly free status back, you can continue to claim the freedom.

There are certain rules and protocols that need to be followed according to both commonwealth and state legislation and standards. As long as we go on that basis and complete a successful eradication program, we have no issue. As an example, it has taken about a year for us to deal with the current Medfly outbreaks in the metropolitan area.

Dr CLOSE: I turn to the updating of the Pastoral Lands Bill. That reference is page 61, the final dot point in a target for 2020-21, which is to draft and consult on a new Pastoral Lands Bill to replace the Pastoral Land Management Conservation Act. Minister, will you make all the submissions public, including departmental submissions to the draft act and in the consultation phase?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The draft South Australian Pastoral Lands Bill has concluded a six-week public consultation. The South Australian pastoral ranges cover 47 per cent of the state and include 323 individual pastoral leases. It is a critical economic contributor to the state's red meat and wool sector, as well as being of vital importance to Aboriginal culture and to regional employment and tourism.

The new draft legislation delivers on the state government's commitment to reform and modernise the current legislative framework that underpins our state's pastoral industry. It proposes a contemporary and flexible legislative framework that will support the continued economic growth of the state's pastoral industry, while ensuring the sustainable conservation of the rangelands for future generations. Pastoralism remains the primary focus, and the use of the rangelands under the proposed legislation with core principles to support economic growth and development in the pastoral industry.

Feedback from stakeholders shows clear demand and support for greater flexibility under the draft legislation to allow alternative land use. The proposed bill will also allow pastoral businesses to diversify and better manage income risk. The government commenced a review of the Pastoral Act in August 2019. Public consultation was undertaken in 2019, and the initial discussion paper received more than 250 submissions, indicating overwhelming support to review the current act. There are a number of key changes and improvements to the proposed Pastoral Lands Bill, including:

extending lease lengths to 42 years up to 100-year leases to allow for long-term investment decisions;

objects of the act will allow for leases to be used for other purposes that will create benefit to the wider pastoral industry;

alternative land uses can be approved where appropriate, with operational details to be set by policy;

more frequent assessments required every 10 years using the latest technology;

assessing the capability of land for its ability to support natural ecology and diversity of the land without intervention, an underpinning principle of the act;

public access routes to remain but more geographically defined;

strong compliance tools and penalties for those who misuse land, including lessees being held to account for impacts on neighbouring non-pastoral land;

sublessees also to be held accountable to the same level as lessees for noncompliance;

improvements in interactions between government agencies and related legislation, with the minister for the Pastoral Lands Act required to be notified before any rights can be granted under another act over a pastoral lease;

the creation of a public register that will provide a one-stop shop for relevant information regarding pastoral leases whilst still maintaining confidentiality; and

greater flexibility for the Pastoral Lands Fund.

In relation to your question about whether submissions will be made public, that will need to rely on the submitters themselves giving permission to do so.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, I understand we were discussing the Pastoral Lands Act. Could you show me where that is? I am sure it is in here somewhere.

Dr CLOSE: Yes, page 61. If you look at the bottom, it is one of the targets for this financial year, to draft and consult on the new bill.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Dr CLOSE: In the latest round of submissions, which I believe would be in response to the draft bill, how many submissions have you received? Is there a box to check, or is there some way to know that the organisations submitting are happy for that to be made public?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There were 67 responses to the YourSAy survey, and 45 direct submissions were also received. As there was not a box to tick, we are actually going back to them to ask them the question: are they prepared to have theirs published?

Dr CLOSE: I understand that the Native Veg Council, the Arid Lands Landscape Board, the Chamber of Mines and Energy, the Department for Environment and Water, the Department for Energy and Mining, and also conservancies like the Nature Foundation of South Australia and Bush Heritage, have significant concerns with the draft bill. Are you aware of the nature of those concerns and have you formed any view about how you might respond to them?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The process is that submissions have been received and the ability for submissions to be received has now closed. Those submissions are now going through the process of being assessed and compiled. We are going through the process to bring that information to me.

Dr CLOSE: I note that the bill is called the Pastoral Lands Bill and it is replacing the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act. Does that change in name imply a reduction of interest in those lands for conservation purposes or conservation value?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The simple answer is no. This act will actually manage the pastoralism and also continue to make sure that conservation and, in particular, as I mentioned, more frequent assessments are being made and that the pastoral land is actually being looked after.

Dr CLOSE: I think, as you are given the summary of a lot of those submissions, that will be a common concern you will see and, with luck, will address satisfactorily. I understand that in their submission to the draft bill Livestock SA was concerned about the removal of stock maximums. Where has the idea that removing a stock maximum is a good idea come from, if not from Livestock SA?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will need to take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Since you have become minister, which stakeholders have you met with to discuss this draft bill?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At this point in time, as the public consultation was open, I have not met any, but I do have some appointments in my diary within the next week or so.

Dr CLOSE: Are they with conservation groups as well as farmers' groups?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: How many times, if at all, have you or your office or your department met with representatives of Hancock Agriculture to discuss the bill and the reform generally?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have not met with Hancock specifically. I have met with David Larkin, who is the chair of the Pastoral Board, in his capacity as chairman of the Pastoral Board, on one teleconference earlier this week.

Dr CLOSE: Has your department met with Hancock Agriculture to discuss the reform of the Pastoral Lands Act?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed again that they have met with David Larkin in his capacity as chairman of the Pastoral Board.

Dr CLOSE: Can you guarantee that no pastoral properties that are currently managed for conservation will be forced to choose either to run livestock or to lose their lease under the new pastoral regime?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is there will be a transition process that will allow lessees who currently have a lease in place to work out how that transition can occur.

Dr CLOSE: Transition to what?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Out of pastoralism.

Dr CLOSE: So if they have a lease under the act, but they manage for conservation, they would be required to transition to a different kind of lease. What is the proposition?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is that that is the plan and that they will be transitioned to another lease structure over a five-year period.

Dr CLOSE: Still on this topic, if you turn to the top of page 62 there is a table that relates to the FTEs and expenses, under Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural Services, and there is an increase in the FTEs. I believe some of the increase from 2018-19 through to today—I am not sure when it occurred—was the transition of the pastoral unit from the environment department into PIRSA. Can I confirm that I have the right place in the budget for that? How has the work undertaken by that unit changed by virtue of being out of the Department for Environment and Water and into the Department of Primary Industries?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed there has been no change in the way it operates. It is still following the act as it previously was.

Dr CLOSE: Has there much change in personnel? Are the individuals largely still the same people?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are advised there are no significant changes in personnel.

Dr CLOSE: Has the minister been made familiar with options of carbon farming being part of the way the rangelands might be managed in the future and has that been countenanced in this draft legislation?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, it certainly has been, and one of the reasons for moving from the 42-year lease to the 100-year lease is to allow agreements to be made in a long-term environment.

Dr CLOSE: I now turn to the question of the abalone industry, which seems like a big jump from the rangelands, but it is a small one in the budget.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Desert to sea.

Dr CLOSE: Further down on page 62—

Mr HUGHES: It is all meat.

Dr CLOSE: Well, some people look at it that way. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 62, Sub-program 1.2: Fisheries and Aquaculture. The description and objective is to 'manage the living marine and freshwater resources of South Australia'. Has the minister—and in this case I mean the minister rather than the department—met with representatives yet from the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, both the department and I have met with representatives multiple times, for both.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. You have done that quickly having not been minister for very long. Is the minister aware how much the abalone industry injects into South Australia's economy? Do you have a working estimate for that from your department?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We do not have the detail with us, but we believe it to be around $45 million from wild catch abalone.

Dr CLOSE: If you could take that on notice, that would be useful; we would appreciate it. It may be the same answer for this question: how many people are employed both directly and indirectly in the abalone industry?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We will take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: I understand that the abalone industry has suffered a lack of demand from a range of buyers such as restaurants and overseas exports, I presume as a result of the pandemic, and therefore the association is seeking a waiver of at least one quarter of the fixed licence fee. Has the minister had an opportunity to turn his mind to whether this is a reasonable request?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, we certainly have considered this space. This is very much in response to the global coronavirus pandemic, which has resulted in disruptions to markets in a range of seafood products from South Australia. This disruption affects both export and domestic markets. Sectors initially impacted by the market disruption include South Australian rock lobster fisheries, but they have also affected, as you have stated, abalone, prawn, blue crab, sardines, Goolwa pipis, vongole, oysters and bluefin tuna.

Registered fish processors who buy fish from commercial fishers and onsell these products are also impacted by limited market opportunities. The state government implemented a range of mitigation actions to alleviate the financial loss to commercial and charter boat fishers, agricultural lease and licence holders and fish processors. These actions included amending regulations to allow uncaught quota from the 2019-20 fishing season to be caught in the following one or two fishing seasons for rock lobster, blue crab, Goolwa pipis and vongole fisheries.

Similar regulation changes are being developed for abalone, sardines and the Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery. It has deferred collection of the 2020-21 commercial fishing and agricultural fees for six months, including outstanding licence fees yet to be paid from 2019-20, and it has waived fees for the charter boat sector for the first six months of 2021. The value of deferred fees in 2020-21 for the commercial fishing sector is approximately $6.19 million and $420,000 for the aquaculture sector.

The value of fee waivers for the charter boat sector is $180,000. As at the end of October 2020, $7.174 million in fishery licences and processing fees remain unpaid for the 2020-21 financial year. A further 450 remain unpaid from the 2019-20 financial year. As of October 2020, $1.3 million in aquaculture lease and licence fees remain unpaid for the 2020-21 financial year and a further 230 remain unpaid from the 2019-20 financial year.

The government has also extended the length of the fishing season in the commercial northern rock lobster fishery to allow an early start in the fishing season and in the commercial southern rock lobster fishery to allow the sectors additional time to harvest annual catches as a mitigating measure to the potential volatile global markets. Also, an additional sardine quota has been set to provide feed for ranched southern bluefin tuna in 2020 as the initial 2020 quota may not be sufficient to feed the tuna due to the COVID-19 impacts and feed not being able to be sourced from overseas.

The government is now actively progressing additional measures to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 on the commercial fishing industry through the normal government processes by seeking amendments to allow the carryover of uncaught quota entitlements in the abalone, sardine and Gulf St Vincent prawn fisheries with respect to night fishing. PIRSA is also regularly providing information to industry representatives on a range of other measures being implemented by government to assist fishers overcome the impacts of COVID-19.

Mr HUGHES: As a point of clarification, when you refer to deferring fees, do you ultimately intend to recover those deferred fees?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is still under consideration and very much will depend on the different sectors themselves. Some of them are more heavily financially impacted than others.

Mr HUGHES: Are we the only state not to waive fees for the commercial fishing sector, given the impacts of COVID-19?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am not aware of the details of the other states. Just going back to the value of the abalone, it is $57 million, so slightly higher than the $45 million.

Dr CLOSE: I now turn to the question of the Apiary Taskforce. The reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 64, Sub-program 1.4: Biosecurity. In the highlights for 2019-20, the formation of the minister's Apiary Taskforce is the final dot point. Can the minister detail to the committee the value of beehive products, including honey, in estimated terms in the South Australian economy?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that the value of honey is about $11 million. The horticultural pollination value is about $1.7 billion.

Dr CLOSE: To be clear, you are including the estimated value of crops pollinated by honey bees when you get into that higher figure, the billion?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, that is the horticulture pollination needs of—

Dr CLOSE: With the $11 million referring to honey, there would be some other beehive products that have some value, but we may not be able to estimate that today.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that we would not have that detail.

Dr CLOSE: With the billion, I did not quite hear all the horticultural—

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It was $1.7 billion.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. Who is on the minister's Apiary Taskforce and what was the process for forming it? What process was undertaken?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The Apiary Taskforce was established on 26 August 2019, and it has been led by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions with representatives from the South Australian Apiarist Association, Apiary Alliance SA, SA Water, the Department for Environment and Water and ForestrySA, and I have a representative on there, the member for Elder, Carolyn Power.

Since its inception, the Apiary Taskforce has focused on identifying key challenges to accessing public land for beekeeping and how the task force can help facilitate access efficiently and consistently with public land managers. The Apiary Taskforce has established a pilot program, which is focused on delivering early opportunities to establish beekeeping sites on publicly managed lands ahead of a broader outcome being sought by the Apiary Taskforce. In April 2020, the pilot project successfully delivered three beekeeping sites in the Kuitpo Forest Reserve, managed by ForestrySA.

This is the first time beekeeping has been allowed in the Kuitpo Forest Reserve. The application process was used to allow eligible beekeepers to register to partake in a ballot, as the number of applicants exceeded the available number of sites. A ballot was conducted in May 2020 to randomly select three beekeepers. Three experienced beekeepers were successful: Mr Aaron Woolston from Meningie, Mr Les Crane from Strathalbyn and Mr Simon Peacock from Mypolonga. The ballot was observed by an independent panel to ensure a fair, unbiased and transparent process was used to select the three successful beekeepers.

Focus is now on the second stage of the pilot project, which aims to deliver five further beekeeping sites in the Mount Bold Reservoir Reserve, managed by SA Water, to bring the total number of sites to eight. I announced the opportunity at the Mount Bold Reservoir on 4 November, with applications to participate in a ballot opening on the same day. Applications will be accepted until 4 December, with a ballot being drawn in mid-December to allocate the sites. I look forward to announcing the outcomes from that ballot later this year.

The CHAIR: I am going to go to the member for Kavel, who has a question.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you, Chair. Can I take us to a slightly different topic momentarily. I take the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 67, regional development, which is a matter of considerable and ongoing interest for my community. How is the government working with communities to prioritise mobile blackspot solutions?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: This government established the $10 million South Australian Mobile Phone Black Spot fund to deliver new and upgraded mobile base stations across regional and remote South Australia. On 4 April 2019, the commonwealth government opened round 5 of its Mobile Black Spot Program, with $80 million available. In response, the government announced a contribution of $3 million from the state's $10 million Mobile Black Spot fund. The state government works with communities and telecommunication companies to put the best applications forward for the commonwealth to co-invest.

On 21 April 2020, the commonwealth government announced that 17 new mobile stations in South Australia would be funded through round 5 of its Mobile Phone Black Spot Program. This outcome represents a total investment of $7.9 million in mobile phone infrastructure in regional and remote South Australia, including $3.8 million from the commonwealth government and a state government investment of $948,980 from the state's $10 million fund.

The sites that were to be funded were Fowlers Bay, Koonibba, Legges Lane, Nundroo Roadhouse, the Yongala township, Farina, Kuitpo, Mudamuckla, Peebinga, Avenue Range, Leigh Creek Copley, Lyndhurst, Paruna, Keilira, Leigh Creek town, Mintabie and Wellington.

The CHAIR: Excellent pronunciation, if I do say so myself, minister, and captured by Hansard.

Dr CLOSE: I may come back to a couple of questions about blackspots, but I will continue with the apiary task force for now. What is the chief objective of the task force? What is it tasked to achieve?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The principal objective of this project was to make more sites from public land in particular available to the apiary industry going forward.

Dr CLOSE: So it is not to address any systemic problems with bees in South Australia that might be caused by pesticide or any other issues? It is really to facilitate using public land for some apiary sites?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, that is right.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate that the minister in his earlier answer explained who is on the task force, but what mechanism was used to determine who that would be? Is there an invitation for people and organisations to apply? Were there criteria that were established?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that the former minister convened this committee and he asked the organisations I listed to send a representative from those committees.

Dr CLOSE: So it was his judgement: 'These are the relevant organisations; I'll ask for a representative from them.' Essentially, it was a ministerial judgement matter.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There were terms of reference developed in consultation between PIRSA and DEW in relation to the set-up of this.

Dr CLOSE: Does PIRSA provide any funding to any beekeeping organisations at present? If so, what is the nature of that funding?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The bee industry has a primary industry funding scheme (PIF scheme), which allows them to collect funds and spend within their sector. Also, there has been 7,200 gone towards this project to put the bees into public land.

Dr CLOSE: When you say 'the beekeeping industry', does that mean anyone who is involved in apiary is able to apply for the PIFS?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will ask my adviser.

Prof. DOROUDI: All the primary industry funding schemes (PIFS) work based on an agreement between the minister and the association or the peak body for the industry. The peak body will run through the processes internally that they have. They will identify the area of investment. They will put their proposals in. Proposals will go through ministerial approval on an annual basis. That is how the system and process works.

In relation to apiary, I may have the exact figure for that. When it comes to the South Australian Apiarists' Association, which is the peak body, more than 100 commercial beekeepers are members of that.

Dr CLOSE: One hundred?

Prof. DOROUDI: More than 100, yes. The funding will be spent based on requests that come through them. For 2020-21, overall the expenditure was about $64,500, and $40,000 of that was to support a beekeeper officer within Biosecurity, part of PIRSA. The contribution came from industry for that and, as the minister said, $7,500 to support ForestrySA, the pilot project that we worked through the Apiary Taskforce.

Dr CLOSE: In acquitting the funds that the South Australian Apiarists' Association receives, is there any public documentation saying this is how much was received and this was how that was acquitted, so that we know that there was value for money?

Prof. DOROUDI: Regulatory, we are obligated to provide those reports and all the PIFS reports will be, I understand, tabled in the parliament as well. That detail is public.

Dr CLOSE: Is the minister aware that the South Australian Apiarists' Association has a closed membership that does not include significant sections of the beekeeping industry of South Australia?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: To the best of my knowledge, any beekeeper is free and able to join the industry association.

Dr CLOSE: I understand that some time ago there was a proposition that there be a peak body for beekeepers that also invited membership from cropping farmers who are dependent on bees. I think there was a suggestion that that might occur that was considered by the department. Has there been any progress made?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are not aware.

Dr CLOSE: Of such a proposition? Okay. I understand that a letter was sent to PIRSA some 12 months ago asking what section of the act and regulations authorised information to be requested from beekeepers about the location of their hives. There has been an acknowledgment of the receipt of that letter, but it has not been responded to in substance. Is the minister or his department able to give an update on where that is up to?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that we are not aware of any outstanding, but we will go and investigate.

Dr CLOSE: I will now turn to fishing, specifically recreational fishing, and the budget line for that is page 62, fisheries and aquaculture. Can the minister provide information to the committee about where consultation is up to on the proposed recreation fishing licence?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for her question. This is a process that is certainly under consideration only at this stage by the Minister's Recreational Fishing Advisory Council (MRFAC). They are running that process.

The Marshall Liberal government has delivered on a commitment to establish a new body for recreational fishers, being the Minister’s Recreational Fishing Advisory Council to provide feedback on the needs and interests of the recreational fishing community direct to me as minister. Since its establishment in 2019, MRFAC has delivered for recreational fishers. For the first time ever, recreational fishers have transparency about decision-making, with the publishing of communiqués from the MRFAC.

The MRFAC has sought the views of recreational fishers to provide advice to government on recreational fishing in reservoirs, razorfish management arrangements, the marine park review proposal and a survey on recreational priorities. Initially, the MRFAC intended to travel around the state and hold workshops to assist in the drafting a recreational fishing strategy. However, due to COVID, it conducted the survey of priority issues for fishers. This survey was the most successful recreational fishing survey in the state's history with over 4,000 responses.

The MRFAC sought and has gained a government review of spearfishing closures for metropolitan Adelaide and razorfish management across the state. The MRFAC has provided advice and consultation on the refresh of the South Australian Recreational Fishing Guide app, and has partnered with the Department of Primary Industries and Regions to deliver on the state government's commitment to stock Murray cod fingerlings into the River Murray in the 2020-21 year. In addition, the MRFAC is continuing to progress key issues for the recreational fishing community by:

developing a strategic plan for recreational fishing in South Australia;

driving the delivery of a new recreational fishing survey undertaken by the South Australian Research and Development Institute; and

representing recreational fishing interests from a number of representative bodies related to recreational fishing, including:

the Seafood Advisory Forum;

the Snapper Management Advisory Committee;

the 2020-21 Recreational Fishing Survey Steering Committee; and

the Blue Infrastructure Working Group.

Six new members and an independent chair have been appointed to the Minister’s Recreational Fishing Advisory Council. They join the continuing members. It is great to have representation from Sharon Starick, the independent chair. We then have a tackle shop owner from Port Lincoln, a spearfisher from Mount Compass, a rock lobster fisher from Robe, a tuna champion and game fisher from Munno Para Downs, a game fisher from Murray Bridge, an inland fisher from Renmark, a land-based kayak fisher from South Brighton, the chair of RecFish SA and a fishing rod repair shop owner from Hampstead Gardens.

The MRFAC held its most recent meeting in late October and will continue to progress the key issues around recreational fishing until we see direct elections to continue the membership on the MRFAC in late 2021.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, when you talked about the survey, was the recreation fishing licence one of the items that was being surveyed?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised yes.

Dr CLOSE: You had something like 4,000 responses, so can you break down for me how many of those responded to the question about a recreational fishing licence and which position they took on it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We do not have that detail, but fishing licences are certainly not currently under the consideration of the government. MRFAC are currently reviewing survey responses, including that fishing licence question.

Dr CLOSE: They are currently reviewing it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The responses to the survey, yes.

Dr CLOSE: Will the responses be made public in due course?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: MRFAC have their own website that sits within the PIRSA structure that puts that information up on their website.

Dr CLOSE: And they will be putting it on their website once they have contemplated or considered it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: Do I understand that the minister has now ruled out a recreational fishing licence; is that what you just said?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, the government is certainly not considering it.

Dr CLOSE: Is not considering it, ruling it out? Would you go that far?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I would not like to pre-empt any position of the MRFAC and their representation to me. I want them to have the ability to put any case forward, but they would have to put a very strong case for me to consider.

Dr CLOSE: So you are not yourself currently contemplating it? MRFAC can recommend whatever it wishes and, should it recommend it, then you would at least consider the recommendation, but you are not saying that you would necessarily support it.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I would always consider all recommendations put before me, but it does not mean I would agree with them.

Dr CLOSE: How did the recreational fishing licence come to be one of the items on the survey? Was that purely initiated by MRFAC, or did that come from a request by the government to determine people's views?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed it was the committee that decided to put that question.

Dr CLOSE: So without any request from the previous minister, I presume?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is my understanding.

Dr CLOSE: If we turn to Murray cod restocking, Sub-program 1.5: South Australian River Murray Sustainability, does that program include the Murray cod restocking program?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The simple answer is yes. In late 2019, the government committed $200,000 over two years to stock Murray cod fingerlings as part of a support package to create additional recreational fishing opportunities in South Australia. The department and the Minister's Recreational Fishing Advisory Council identified locations with suitable habitat, and 90,000 fingerlings were released into the Lower River Murray in February 2020.

The Murray cod is an extremely important species to the Murray River community; restocking will support the recovery of the species, and the ultimate goal is to create a sustainable Murray cod fishery. In the long term, these restocking initiatives will contribute to the revitalisation of recreational fishing opportunities in the region so that future generations and visitors can enjoy catching these unique fish for many years to come.

Murray cod fingerlings can take three to five years to grow to a fishable size, depending on the quality and habitat in the water. Funding of $100,000 is available to stock Murray cod fingerlings in 2020-21, and the Minister's Recreational Fishing Advisory Council will again inform the numbers of the fish that can be released at the sites.

Dr CLOSE: So there has been some release this year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In February, yes.

Dr CLOSE: And then there will be another—presumably February is the right time—

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: February is my understanding.

Dr CLOSE: —for the species. So there will be another lot. That then discharges the $200,000 that I understand the former minister committed to in January of this year.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is correct.

Dr CLOSE: You probably answered this in the previous question but, with the recreational fishing survey, was there feedback requested at that time on people's views about having Murray cod restocked?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will need to check that.

Dr CLOSE: From January to July next year there will be a Murray cod catch and release season open. Has that been declared? Is that being planned?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is an annual consideration, depending on fish stocks, etc. It will be brought to me as minister for consideration.

Dr CLOSE: When does that decision get made? When are you able to tell? January is not far away.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We will check and confirm the timing of that.

Dr CLOSE: I go back to page 63. The third dot point for the targets at the top of that page—so we are back in Fisheries and Aquaculture—is to deliver a recreational fishing strategic plan. I appreciate that the minister touched on that in his earlier answer about MRFAC, but what are the headline details of that strategy likely to be?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is something for MRFAC, to develop their strategic plan and present it and bring it forward.

Dr CLOSE: The minister or the department is not saying, 'We need a strategy that addresses these issues,' at all? It is entirely up to MRFAC to generate that from within, and then you make a determination about what you accept and do not accept?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, it is up to them to present that strategic plan.

Dr CLOSE: Is that the sort of document that needs cabinet approval, or would that be your decision?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Any advice that MRFAC brings to me is advice to me, and I will then have to make a decision as to whether that requires cabinet approval or whether it is something that can be done without taking it to cabinet.

Dr CLOSE: What sort of timing are you expecting? Do you have a deadline or a commitment from MRFAC about when they will be presenting a draft strategy to you?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At this stage, we do not have that time frame. COVID has certainly thrown a few spanners in the works in relation to these sorts of developments.

Dr CLOSE: And so much else. Is there anywhere in the budget a provision for expenditure on such a strategy once it is delivered and accepted?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At this point in time, until we receive the strategic plan we have not allocated funds because we do not know what is in it.

The CHAIR: It is a bit of an unusual question, deputy leader, given that we are examining this budget and you have just asked if there is anything in there, which there is not.

Dr CLOSE: If I can just defend myself very briefly, the third dot point says that the target is to deliver a state recreational fishing strategic plan. I wondered if any money had been provisioned to spend on that plan or if it would just be a lovely document. That is the reason I think it is a legitimate question to ask in the budget.

The CHAIR: Excellent. It is good to see everyone is still awake.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In relation to the anticipated time frame, it is hoped it will be before their election process, which will be late 2021 for half of MRFAC to go the election process.

Dr CLOSE: I will just slip in one more question. I have lost track of all time, but I think we are finishing briefly at 5. The minister has not said what he would like to see in the strategy, any headlines, any outcomes, and he has not given any indication of what money he might be willing to spend on it. It is going to be a bit of an adventure when it arrives, isn't it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am not sure I can even give an answer—

Dr CLOSE: It seems unusual to ask for a strategy without any kind of guidelines about what would be acceptable to government, what you might be willing to fund and how much is available.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am leaving it up to MRFAC to determine what they would like to present.

Sitting suspended from 17:00 to 17:15.

Mr ELLIS: Minister, in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, on page 61 there is reference to ensuring that policy, planning and regulatory frameworks are in place to underpin long-term productivity, profitability and competitiveness. I wonder if you might expand on how the Grain Industry Blueprint has allowed for that work to be done.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for his question. The Marshall Liberal government provided $140,000 to Grain Producers SA to undertake the development of the South Australian Grain Industry Blueprint for the next 10 years. The initiative is the first of its kind for the South Australian grains sector and has been developed after significant consultation with industry and key stakeholders.

The blueprint outlines a pathway forward for the grains industry to become a $6 billion industry by 2030. We have announced a $75,000 grant, leveraged from the blueprint, to provide market diversification workshops to grain farmers. The grain industry contributes at a farmgate value of $1.7 billion per year, and we have 4,500 farmers growing around four million hectares of grain crop each year. In fact, the latest crop and pasture report estimates this season's grain harvest at almost nine million tonnes.

In the face of adversity, our grains industry has demonstrated resilience and innovation, with production in recent drought years more than double compared with droughts in the mid-2000s. The blueprint is aimed at helping the grains industry to attract greater investment across the entire value chain through public-private partnership, boosting agricultural research and development, and providing jobs and skills training.

This is an industry-led initiative designed to identify opportunities and shape the future of the industry. The blueprint is based on six pillars: value-adding, market demand, on-farm innovation, building industry capacity, infrastructure investment, biosecurity and quality assurance. The grains industry believes the initiatives outlined in the blueprint will be critical in kickstarting South Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The state government is committed to supporting the state's primary industries to invest, expand and grow our Growth State agenda. To drive this, the government has set an objective to lift the sustainable economic growth of 3 per cent per year. The blueprint will also support the National Farmers Federation's vision for Australian agriculture to exceed $100 billion in farmgate output by 2030. The Marshall Liberal government is investing in the grains sector and we want to make the industry even stronger into the future.

Dr CLOSE: I think I will take this opportunity to read the omnibus questions, which is the third time I have done that this week.

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2020 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

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

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

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

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

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

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2020-21, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period?

The top ten providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2019-20; and

A description of the goods and/or services provided by each of these top ten providers, and the cost to the agency for these goods and/or services.

The value of the goods and services that was supplied to the agency by South Australian suppliers.

3. Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment?

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

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2019-20 and budgeted cost for 2020-21.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2020, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

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

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2019-20?

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

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

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

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

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2019 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2019, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

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

12. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21?

13. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21? How much was sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

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

15. For the period of 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

17. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2019 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2019 and what is their purpose?

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

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

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: The member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 62, Sub-program 1.2: Fisheries and Aquaculture. My questions will be about the giant Australian cuttlefish, a topic close to my heart. Earlier this year, the government and the previous minister decided to reduce protection for the giant Australian cuttlefish and especially reduce protection in part of the area where the globally unique cuttlefish breeding aggregation occurred. Following on from that, what tonnages or numbers of cuttlefish were taken by the commercial sector in that area during the season that has just gone by?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Before I give an answer, I will quickly update a couple of items from previous questions. In relation to the Berri Regional Growth Fund project, all projects were assessed by the Regional Growth Fund assessment panel. The process adopted by the panel was:

1. Assess all applications for eligibility against the Regional Growth Fund strategic business round guidelines.

2. Undertake preliminary assessment and scoring against the weighted selection criteria.

3. Applications which passed stage 2 proceeded to a technical and financial feasibility assessment.

4. Undertake a risk assessment.

5. The panel then considered the outcomes of these assessments, short-listed them and made recommendations for the project to be funded.

The Berri Hotel was recommended for funding by the panel based on the material in the application. This application leverages a total investment of $7,092,000 for the $1.5 million funding provided and proposes 20 jobs in construction, 12 additional full-time equivalents ongoing in the business and 56 full-time equivalent indirect jobs. Also, in terms of the question about abalone wild catch, there are 241 full-time equivalents involved in the abalone industry. In relation to the Murray cod season, the decision is made in December to go for the season from 1 January to 31 July.

In relation to giant cuttlefish, for a limited time each winter the giant cuttlefish migrate to mate in the False Bay area north of Whyalla. The spawning season runs for four to five months and generally peaks around May/June each year. Towards the end of the spawning season in July/August, following the annual mating and spawning event, cuttlefish naturally die off, often quite quickly. Cuttlefish have a life cycle of around 12 months, when eggs grow and young cuttlefish eventually leave the protected False Bay area and migrate across Spencer Gulf, only to return the following winter to mate, spawn and die.

The cephalopod cuttlefish, squid or octopus fish enclosure implemented under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 has protected the giant cuttlefish spawning population at Point Lowly since 1998. In 2013, the giant cuttlefish fell to worrying low levels of about 13½ thousand individual animals. At that time, in response, a further precautionary fishing closure was implemented to temporarily prohibit giant cuttlefish fishing in Upper Spencer Gulf whilst research was undertaken and the population monitored.

The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) and the University of Adelaide have undertaken $860,000 worth of research since 2013 to ensure we understand as much as possible about this species. The latest science indicates there are no sustainable concerns for the giant Australian cuttlefish, with populations rebounding from a low of 13½ thousand in 2013 to constantly over 100,000 cuttlefish in each of the past five years. The latest of the annual surveys undertaken in 2020 saw a record high estimated population of approximately 247,000 giant Australian cuttlefish.

Through this regular monitoring, we know the permanent closure in the False Bay area covers all significant spawning aggregation areas of the species and is supported by all stakeholders, including the government. The science indicates the most likely detriment for variation in population numbers is the temperature of the water during spawning. As such, temporary fishing closures in Upper Spencer Gulf lapsed on 15 February 2020 and it is no longer required to protect the species. About 23 tonnes were taken commercially up to September 2020.

Mr HUGHES: So the logic is that the protection was working, so we will reduce the protection?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The logic is that the life cycle of the cuttlefish is an annual-based life cycle and that the numbers have rebounded well beyond the long-term average to a record high.

Mr HUGHES: Yet we know that in 2013 the population crashed by 90 per cent, depending on what year you use as your baseline, and we still do not know the factors that surround the crash in population and that is why a precautionary principle was adopted in Northern Spencer Gulf. We have no guarantee that there will not be a crash in the future. The exploitation, in this case, of 23 tonnes of cuttlefish, most of which was taken off the Point Lowly peninsula, don't you think it is not a decision that demonstrates some foresight?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am going to hand over to my adviser.

Prof. DOROUDI: Thanks for the question. The cuttlefish is one of the cephalopods. Cephalopods, in terms of population, always go up and down without us being able to exactly or specifically point the finger to a certain type of activity. It could be environment or it could be the temperature of the water. What we know for sure is that when we had the low numbers at that time, we had to bring a more precautionary approach.

The science has been continued in terms of stock assessment and the status of the population on an annual basis. It is suggesting to us that there is no need for further protection beyond the permanent closure at Point Lowly currently in place. The numbers are good. Cuttlefish is a species that is going to die in less than 12 months after they release their eggs and sperm when they get together in that region. There was no evidence in relation to maintaining that closure in that area.

Mr HUGHES: There might well be an argument, given that the closure was roughly a line north of Wallaroo over to Arno Bay. As a fisher in that area, when you are out catching squid, you do not catch many cuttlefish in the broad Northern Spencer Gulf.

A lot of people have considered it very irresponsible, including cephalopod experts from around the world, to open up part of the cuttlefish breeding aggregation. A number of the commercial boats were lining up off the point where the cuttlefish aggregate. On the northern side of the gulf, the cuttlefish aggregation on that side was wiped out by a combination of commercial and recreational fishing.

Given the globally unique nature of this aggregation and given the fact that, pre COVID-19, it attracted tourists and dive tourists from around the world and from around Australia and attracted major documentary makers, why would we treat it just as a straightforward fishery issue? Would we use the same logic, for instance, with dolphins or whales? It might be sustainable now; the numbers have built up. Why not catch them?

The CHAIR: There was a lot of commentary in that, member for Giles, and I understand that. Your question related to dolphins and whales. Do you have a more specific question?

Mr HUGHES: I guess the issue, I would argue, is that there is a qualitative difference here, given the globally unique nature of the aggregation. Let me put it into perspective. If I was to ask you how many commercial fishing operators, not divers, are actually exploiting the cuttlefish and taking those 23 tonnes, how many boats do you think there might be in the Northern Spencer Gulf?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Going back in this process, there is a cuttlefish working group that consists of councils, scientists, the Department for Environment and Water, and Tourism. They all sit on that advisory group. They make assessments based on the science and make recommendations to me as minister to decide whether there is a need to exclude the fishing of giant cuttlefish or not based on the world's best science of this species. I will always follow that science, the recommendations based on that science and how this sector should be considered. Given the current numbers of the population, my opinion is that there is room for both commercial fishing and the tourism aspect as well.

Mr HUGHES: How many commercial operators have benefitted?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I do not have that detail.

Mr HUGHES: It would be a handful.

The CHAIR: Member for Giles, if I just take you back a bit, your question to the minister asking how many boats do you think might be in the Northern Spencer Gulf was at best rhetorical. I understand you are trying to make—

Mr HUGHES: I would have thought the department might have a handle on the commercial operators in the Upper Spencer Gulf taking cuttlefish. I understand there is no commercial quota on cuttlefish, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but the eyewitness reports—and when I have been out there as well—are that it is a only a handful of commercial operators from Port Pirie and Wallaroo who have been exploiting that biomass.

Prof. DOROUDI: In terms of the number of fishermen, we do have that data, but not with us here. We do know how many of each species are caught by which licence. It is a mandatory reporting system that needs to come through. It would not be completely correct to say it is a handful of fishermen, because it is a species that could be listed as part of the 50 or 60 species that we have listed on marine scalefish fishery licences. Therefore, any marine scalefish fishery licence holder could potentially become active on this species as with any other species of those 50 or 60.

In relation to the significance of the species, there is no argument there. That is why all those protections, when they are needed, will go towards it. We are going to continue the monitoring of this stock into the future. As science says, in relation to every species that we manage, we bring the control management measures in place as they are needed and necessary. I hope that has answered the question.

Mr HUGHES: I am a great respecter of science as well, but I guess in this case when you refer to 'science' you are referring to a survey and then a value judgement made in relation to that survey, that this is just a straightforward fisheries issue.

Prof. DOROUDI: If I understood the question correctly, when the status of the stock became better we did not need to do that on an annual basis, but we did that every couple of years to make sure that we monitored the numbers. This year, as the minister said, has been the highest number ever over the past 10 to 15 years that we have done that assessment. On that basis, the decision was made that some of those measures could be stopped or removed, as they were all temporary measures that we brought in to manage this situation.

When stock goes down in a fishery, it is not necessarily always the problem of the fishermen. The problem here is the fishermen and their activity is one of the only things we can go and manage in this process. Therefore, when science says that the status of a stock is right in a sustainable way, there is no need maintain and keep additional pressure on fisheries or fishing activity. That was the basis of the advice that came from that committee.

Mr HUGHES: I guess the alternative argument is that this is globally unique and should be protected fully. Going back to some of the other issues raised about the nature of the committee that makes the decisions based on the survey, what consultation happened with local dive operators and other dive operators throughout the state when it came to the decision to reduce the protection, bearing in mind that the alternative dive site, when you cannot dive on the southern part of the peninsula, was the northern part of the peninsula and the giant Australian cuttlefish on that northern side were wiped out? There were none there this season.

The CHAIR: Bearing in mind, member for Giles, that my understanding is it was a decision made by the previous Minister for Primary Industries. We had this conversation with Minister Tarzia also. It is up to the minister here to answer it how he wishes, but I would not see that he is necessarily responsible for decisions made by a previous minister.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for the question. As I was not minister at the time, I am unaware of that consultation to know the detail.

Mr HUGHES: Well, I could say there was no consultation. Given the role that the Premier plays as the tourism minister, was the Premier consulted when it came to a reduction in protection for the aggregation?

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order, Mr Chair: 'tourism'.

Mr HUGHES: An entirely reasonable question; he is the tourism minister.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, in the tourism estimates.

The CHAIR: He is the tourism minister. Once again, it was a decision made—I would not expect this minister to know the answer to that question, quite frankly, member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES: Or his department? It is part of the consultation process leading to a decision, and I would have thought that the tourism minister would have had a role to play in that decision.

Mr PEDERICK: You have to ask him.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My response, I guess, would be to ask the former minister.

Mr HUGHES: And I guess I will get the same answer, but was the environment minister consulted?

The CHAIR: I have already indicated, member for Giles—and I appreciate your line of questioning—that I do not, as committee Chair, expect this minister to be responsible for or have answers for decisions made by the previous minister. We had the same conversation in the previous session.

Mr HUGHES: Given the continuity of the department, and largely the same personnel in place, and also the continuity of the advisers, surely someone would be able to answer whether the Premier and the Minister for Environment were consulted over this decision to reduce protection.

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: 97, argument and opinion.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am also aware, as stated previously, as part of that committee—that working group that looks at the science—that members of that committee are Tourism and DEW.

Mr HUGHES: Yes, but none of them have anything to do with cuttlefish though.

The CHAIR: Can I go back to the point of order raised by the member for Kavel: 97, such questions not to involve argument. I do not uphold the point of order in this case because he was merely putting to the minister a question in relation to the continuity of the department. That was reasonable, but the minister can obviously answer as he sees fit.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I pointed out, the working group was consulted, and members of that working group are the South Australian Tourism Commission, DEW and the Conservation Council as well.

Mr HUGHES: Who were the tourism representatives on that working group? What organisations did the tourism representatives represent?

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order, sir.

Mr HUGHES: No, that is a reasonable question.

Mr PEDERICK: No, it is not.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order from the member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister is not responsible for any tourism-related questions, sir.

The CHAIR: No, that is correct—

Mr HUGHES: But it is part of the consultation leading up to the decision.

The CHAIR: —but his question was about the committee, as I recall, so I am going to allow it.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised it was the South Australian Tourism Commission.

Mr HUGHES: Thank you; that is worth knowing. When it came to the environment council, who was the representative?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Of the environment council? The Conservation Council?

Mr HUGHES: Sorry, the Conservation Council.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We do not have with us the name of the representative of the Conservation Council, but we can get you a name, if you would desire.

Mr HUGHES: To the knowledge of the department, did the Conservation Council support the decision to reduce the protection?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised it was a unanimous decision of the working group to come up with their recommendation, but we will confirm that. The Conservation Council member's name was Craig Wilkins.

Mr HUGHES: Will the committee be looking at the data again in the near future to make a decision as to whether the protection should be increased and, if so, what is the time line for that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have certainly made public statements along the lines that, yes, the working group will be consulted again going forward in these decisions.

Mr HUGHES: Will there be wider consultation this time beyond the committee to those organisations that are directly affected?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At this point in time, the working group is the committee that is put there to make recommendations, and we will see what that recommendation is before deciding whether we need to go wider. Also, apparently I just need to correct something. I was misinformed: the decision was not unanimous. The next meeting is in December.

Mr HUGHES: When will the decision be either ratified or modified? Will that be in December, or will that be later?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I cannot pre-empt their advice.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, I invite you, if you have the information, to specifically indicate whether it was in fact not Craig Wilkins' position that he supported the majority outcome?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that is the case, yes.

Dr CLOSE: I think it is just important to be clear, having specifically named him before.

The CHAIR: Excuse me, deputy leader and minister, I am missing some of this. Deputy leader, could you repeat your question, please?

Dr CLOSE: I was just picking up that the minister had said in response to the member for Giles that a particular individual was named as being from the Conservation Council and as having supported the decision to remove the protection of the cuttlefish.

The CHAIR: Initially, the minister said the decision was unanimous, yes.

Dr CLOSE: Yes, and then in saying that it was not unanimous, given that one individual was named, I invited him to take the opportunity, if that person had not supported it, to say that.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Which I confirmed.

Dr CLOSE: And he has confirmed. I think that is important for the reputation of that person that that be allowed to be known.

The CHAIR: Yes, I understand that, but please remember that we need to have this examination through the Chair. It is all very well for you two to chat away, but I missed a bit of it, unfortunately. The member for Hammond has a question.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, sir. I am keen to talk about marine scalefish reform, minister. I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 62 and 63, Sub-program 1.2: Fisheries and Aquaculture. Will the minister please advise how the government is progressing with purchasing licences in the reform of the marine scalefish fishery?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The Marshall Liberal government is delivering on a key election commitment to our state fishers by supporting a historic reform of the commercial marine scalefish fishery. We are on track for fishing under the new arrangements on 1 July next year. The $24.5 million reform aims to increase the profitability of fishing businesses, grow sustainable fishing populations and improve opportunities for recreational fishers. Key elements of the reform are:

introducing a total allowable catch for priority and second tier species;

a priority species will be managed by an individual transferable quota system; and

the fishery will be managed by four regional fishing zones to enable local management of fish stocks.

The removal of up to 150 licences is supported by a $22 million government funded Voluntary Licence Surrender Program. The program commenced on 25 May this year and closed on 13 November. As of today, we have received 130 applications for voluntary licence surrender, with 35 licence surrender proposals from Gulf St Vincent licence holders, 66 from Spencer Gulf, 25 from the West Coast and four from the South-East. A few more applications may still come, with applications in the mail and postmarked Friday 13November still able to be submitted.

In relation to quota allocation methodology, an independent allocation advisory panel was set up with expertise in legal fishery economics and fisheries management. The panel was tasked to investigate and provide advice on an appropriate basis for the allocation of catch quota to individual licence holders through the individual transferable quota-based system.

A consultation process commenced with the release of the first package of information in June 2020. Licence holders were invited to respond to an online survey and/or submit their feedback via email or post. The panel provided initial advice which went out to consultation with package 2 and other matters for consultation.

To further assist fishers to understand the proposed reforms, a series of regional meetings was undertaken during August and September, at which 200 licence holders attended. The consultation period ended on 18 September 2020. All of the 177 survey responses and 69 written submissions and summaries of the 17 regional meetings were reviewed by the panel, which then provided me with its final report.

Following careful consideration of all information, I announced the government's final decision in relation to the allocation formula. The information has been provided to all licence holders on the management zones, the total allowed catches for priority species and the government's proposed methods of allocating individual transferrable quota units in the fishery. Individual licence holders have also been provided with indicative individual quotas.

Should a licence holder believe they have exceptional circumstances that have impacted their fishing activity and, if it were not for those circumstances their catch history and consequently their quota allocation would have been higher, they can apply through the exceptional circumstances process. Retired magistrate Dr Andrew Cannon has been appointed to independently assess exceptional circumstances claims and provide advice to me as minister. The exceptional circumstances process opened for applications on 1 November and closes on Monday 30 November.

Dr CLOSE: I would like to turn to the topic of commercial fishing licences. The reference is on page 69 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, the table of the statement of comprehensive income for the department. Fifth down in the income list is fees, fines and penalties. How much was raised through commercial fishing licences in the 2019-20 financial year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The total that was recovered from industry, fisheries and aquaculture, was $15,012,000. For industries, as per the latest budget, fisheries and aquaculture, a proportion of the R&D spend is $13,857,000 and going into the aquaculture fund is just over $1 million.

Dr CLOSE: What is the average cost of a commercial fishing licence in South Australia?

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, just for clarification, are you talking about a marine scale fishing licence?

Dr CLOSE: I am talking about all commercial fishing licences.

The CHAIR: So across different sectors?

Dr CLOSE: That is right.

The CHAIR: So there will be a significant difference, I would guess, between each sector.

Dr CLOSE: I am sure you are right.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That was the answer I was about to give, that the fees are very different across every sector.

Dr CLOSE: Is it possible to break it down into those sectors for me?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We will take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: This was discussed earlier in the context of abalone, so if you tell me that you have answered this I will believe you. There is a question about the waiving of commercial fishing licences due to the COVID situation. I believe you stated that you had deferred some licences but not waived any; is that true?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: What have other states and territories done, to your knowledge?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are aware that some of the other states have waived fees, but we do not have those details with us.

Dr CLOSE: Have you received representations requesting waiver as opposed to deferral from any commercial fishing sectors?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We have certainly had conversations with some sectors, yes.

Dr CLOSE: What support is being offered to businesses that are having their exports blocked due to the challenges with the Chinese trade relationship?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I understand there are a number of concerns in regard to South Australia's export trade with China. The government of South Australia is communicating with the commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, which regulates export fishing—in particular, lobsters—as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The department will continue to monitor any developments on this issue.

Dr CLOSE: But at present there is no allocation of resources to support those sectors within your department?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are closely working with industry and DIT on this matter.

Dr CLOSE: On the same topic but changing references, on page 63 there is a table that lists the expenses and income for the sub-program of fisheries and aquaculture. I see a substantial increase in expenses between the 2019-20 actual, which is some $19 million, to the 2020-21 budget, which is some $40 million.

In the explanation of significant movements there is an acknowledgement that this is primarily due to payments under the Marine Scalefish Fishery Reform program. Can the minister quantify how much of that relates to the Marine Scalefish Fishery Reform program?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As part of the buyback of the licences, $22 million in that space.

Dr CLOSE: Are there any other variations that explain the difference between the two? That is $21 million, but it says 'primarily', so there might be some up and some down.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised there is nothing particularly significant to identify.

Dr CLOSE: Continuing on that page reference, with the FTEs listed as 114 being budgeted for, 111 at present, how many of those FTEs are employed dedicated to the commercial sector? How many for the recreational branch of the department?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There are many officers who cross both the recreational and commercial sector. We do not have with us the detail of each individual split in that regard.

Mr CREGAN: I take the committee to Budget Paper 3, page 109. Can the minister explain how the government is assisting the wine industry to showcase and adopt new technology?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: With a focus on agtech and innovation, the South Australian Wine Industry Development Scheme delivered a number of initiatives to grow the sector. One of the key projects announced was an exciting partnership with Wine Australia to showcase emerging technologies at SARDI's research farms at Nuriootpa and Loxton, as well as private vineyards. The government committed $200,000 to the $870,000 project, which is being initiated in South Australia but will be delivered nationally.

The project will strengthen the wine sector by increasing its awareness and confidence to adopt relevant agtech solutions that will optimise grape and wine operations. This scheme's round had 27 applications, requesting over $3.5 million in funding and with total project values of up to $8.5 million. There were several exciting projects funded, including a business cluster led by McLaren Vale-based Platfarm and Consilium Technology to bring together a multistakeholder group made up of growers, industry, government, academia, business, technologists and geospatial experts to work together to digitally map vineyards, including the Langhorne Creek region.

Ferment 2.0 is a program focused on wine and tourism agtech and upskilling and challenging businesses to think outside the square. There is also a rapid assessment project led by Wine Australia, Consilium Technology and the University of Adelaide to develop a new tool to rapidly, objectively and cost effectively map fire damage at a block level using high-resolution satellite imagery.

The Adelaide Hills vine improvement committee clone project was developed as a major consequence of the Cudlee Creek bushfires, which led to the loss of 1,100 hectares of vineyards in the Adelaide Hills wine region, including the loss of six major grapevine source blocks essential to replace the fire-damaged vines and to replant numerous ageing vineyards established in the 1980s and 1990s. The project will develop a world-first genetic test to objectively verify clonal identity in pinot noir.

It is important to note that we also allocated $235,000 of this fund to support mapping and assessment of grapevines damaged in the summer bushfires and smoke taint vouchers for grapegrowers.

Dr CLOSE: I would like to turn to SARDI, page 63, Sub-program 1.3: South Australian Research and Development Institute. On the next page, there is a list of income, including some $55 million being budgeted for in the 2020-21 budget. How much of that income is from externally funded projects?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that all of the $55 million, being income, is money that has come in. The difference between expenditure and income is the government's allocated funds into that.

Dr CLOSE: I understand. How much of that external income comes from another government and how much from industry?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: For an exact figure, we will take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Is it possible to give a sense of proportion? Is most of it industry sourced? Is most of it federal government sourced?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The majority of that funding would come from research and development corporations (RDCs).

Dr CLOSE: Is there also income that goes to SARDI that comes from cost recovery levies imposed on industry? Is that one of the funding streams?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will refer this answer to my adviser.

Prof. DOROUDI: The commercial fishing industry pays for the science—that is, the statutory science—to set all the TACs on an annual basis. There is a small amount of fee-for-service work for a couple of other divisions of SARDI. Apart from that, the rest of the majority of the fund comes from proposals, competitive rounds to RDCs or CRCs.

The CHAIR: Three minutes to go in this session.

Dr CLOSE: One last question, I suspect.

The CHAIR: Yes, certainly.

Dr CLOSE: I would like to turn to agricultural services and horticulture and refer to Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural Services, page 61. Does the government or does the minister have a strategy for research and development to support the horticultural industry?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that in the horticultural space, like in most other industries, strategic direction is more commonly set at a national level, and industry bodies and RDC appropriates—horticulture Australia in this case—will set the agenda. SARDI, PIRSA and others would then work toward that agenda that is set at a national level.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 61, Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural Services. Will the minister explain how the dog fence rebuild will support pastoralists and farmers against the impact of wild dogs?

The CHAIR: Minister, I am going to give you just one minute.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Wild dogs have a profound impact on the state's $4.7 billion livestock industry. The Marshall Liberal government has recognised the need to act quickly to implement our $1.2 million election commitment to appoint two full-time equivalent wild dog trappers. The trapping program has been highly effective, but we also recognise this was only a small measure in helping to fix the long-term impact of wild dogs. Therefore, working closely with the livestock industry and the commonwealth government, we secured a $25 million commitment to rebuild 1,600 kilometres of the 100-year-old South Australian dog fence.

Stage 2 of the project has begun. This is supported by the wild dog bounty program, with more than 200 trapped to date. The dog fence is the most important asset protecting the $1.5 billion sheep industry. About two-thirds of the South Australian dog fence is 100 years old. These sections are brittle and have been damaged by camels, kangaroos, emus, wild dogs and weather events. The rebuild of the dog fence commenced in the autumn of 2020. The first section to be rebuilt was 26 kilometres in the north-east pastoral area. I am pleased to advise this was completed in July.

The second stage has begun, with the section being 115 kilometres long, also in the north-east pastoral land, and the rebuild of stage 2 will end at the New South Wales border. The third and fourth sections to be rebuilt are north of Murray, including about 200 kilometres. The fifth section is a 200-kilometre section north-west of Roxby Downs. The rebuild is supporting South Australian companies and jobs, particularly those that provide fencing material and services.

The CHAIR: Thank you minister; you have done well. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio program of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions complete. We now move to ForestrySA. The minister will need to change advisers. Thank you to those advisers who have been with us.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Speed, Chief Executive, ForestrySA.

Prof. M. Doroudi, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr D. Humphrys, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr R. Robinson, Director, Department of Primary Industries and Regions, Forests.

The CHAIR: The minister appearing is the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. The estimate of payments is for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions and Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions. I advise members that the proposed payments for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement about forestry, if he wishes, and introduce his advisers.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you, Chair. I would also like to thank the department staff for their work in the last session. In my opening statement in this session, I would like to start by saying that the South Australian Forestry Corporation, trading as ForestrySA, is a statutory authority which is a commercial and recreational forest manager. ForestrySA's key commercial activity is the management of the Mount Lofty Ranges forest estate, with an area of over 10½ thousand hectares of commercial pine plantation. Maximising the value of the forest asset is a key strategic priority for ForestrySA.

Here with me today is Julian Speed, Chief Executive of ForestrySA. I also have remaining with me Professor Mehdi Doroudi, Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, and Rob Robinson, Director, Forestry, Department of Primary Industries and Regions. We look forward to your questions.

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

Dr CLOSE: No, other than to reiterate the thanks to the staff for being here.

The CHAIR: I invite questions.

Dr CLOSE: If I may turn to page 109 in Budget Paper 3, there is a reference to funding through ForestrySA community service obligations going to forestry research and development through the National Institute for Forest Products Innovation centre in Mount Gambier. It says that there is $2 million from the state government over four years to June 2021. What funding will there be for the institute over the forward estimates? Is there anything that goes beyond June 2021?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that any future funding will be based on the assessment of the current projects and the requirement of funding going forward in the lead-up to 30 June and after those projects are complete or in process.

Dr CLOSE: So it is conceivable that there will be no money and it is conceivable that there will continue to be money. You are not able to guarantee anything at this stage?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There has been no decision made about that either way at this stage.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate the decision is likely to be reported in the budget, but might the decision be made earlier than next year's budget and known to the community?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That decision also has to be made with the commonwealth so its reliance is in that space. It will be made in consultation with them.

Dr CLOSE: I go back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 66, Sub-program 1.6: Forestry Policy. There is a table listing expenses and income for that sub-program. There is a difference of $4.615 million between 2019-20 budget and actual. There is an explanation that refers to the profile of grant programs. Can the minister give some more detail about the reason for that difference?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that that is almost exactly what has been spent in the South East Forestry Partnerships Program. It includes increased expenditure in associated costs with the sale of government-owned land as part of the Mid North Forests Future Strategy of about $100,000.

Dr CLOSE: If I can turn to the question of forestry roads. In last year's budget, the state government announced a plan to develop a prioritisation list of forestry-specific road transport issues. What roads were identified as priorities as a result of this investigation?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We do not have that detail with us, but we will try to get it before the end of the session.

Dr CLOSE: You may answer the same to these questions, but is it possible to tell me how much funding has gone into fixing those roads over the past 12 months?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Likewise, we will see if we can get an answer before the end of the session.

Dr CLOSE: And, if possible, what is planned for the next 12 months and how many issues have been fixed thus far since the announcement was made. If you can take all of that on notice, I would appreciate it.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We will take that on notice and see if we can get an answer.

Dr CLOSE: On page 66, under targets for 2020-21 there is the reference the state government has listed, and I quote:

Work with the forest and wood products industry to pursue recovery pathways following the impacts of bushfires and the pandemic.

There is feedback that we have received from industry that nothing specific has been done to support the forestry industry. Is it possible for the minister to say what specific support is available to the industry?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In relation to both bushfire and COVID recovery, in the 2019-20 fire season the South Australian forestry plantations were significantly impacted by bushfires on Kangaroo Island, at Cudlee Creek and at Keilira in the Limestone Coast. The Department of Primary Industries and Regions continues to support recovery with a variety of measures. I note farm forestry growers affected by fires have accessed bushfire recovery grants of up to $75,000, which are administered by the department.

On Kangaroo Island, about 15,000 hectares of plantation were burnt. The department is working with the majority plantation owner, Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers, and the other small growers on the island. In the Mount Lofty Ranges, a total of 218 hectares of plantation were burnt. The South Australian Forestry Corporation, ForestrySA, is now salvaging its own plantation as well as assisting private woodlots. Caught in these fires were important recreational assets, such as high-class mountain bike tracks, which are being reinstated by ForestrySA.

In the Limestone Coast, 254 hectares were burnt. While the Limestone Coast forestry plantation growers suffered fewer losses from the last fire season, I acknowledge their concerns for the coming fire season, including the maintenance and staffing of fire towers as well as the rapid deployment of fire crews, and today we have made announcements in relation to that. We are spending $1.1 million in this space to make sure that we have maintenance and staffing of fire towers.

COVID-19 impacted the forestry wood sector in several ways. The South Australian-Victorian border dissects the Green Triangle, Australia's most concentrated plantation and forestry wood processing region. Border controls are requiring the industry to adapt and adjust their workplace practices and operations. A decline in the harvest wood export market due to COVID has placed the hardwood industry in a difficult position.

Forest growers have the ability to delay harvest until the market recovers; however, employment has fallen in other parts of the value chain, particularly the harvest and haulage sector. Recovery of markets may be relatively slow and the harvesting and haulage sector has invested significantly in specialised logging equipment, which is not generating a return on investment. The government is working with stakeholders and the Australian government to support the industry.

I have had several meetings with Forestry over the last few weeks, including as recently as yesterday, particularly to understand the Chinese customs issues in relation to the biosecurity issue of allegedly live bark beetles. The South Australian log exports are almost entirely dependent on the China market, with most logs, along with Victorian logs, going through the port of Portland. It is understood the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is assessing the implications of the ban, including the status of any consignments mid-passage to China and any issues with biosecurity protocols. South Australia will assist with the investigations and support industry as necessary.

Dr CLOSE: On the subject of the challenges associated with the pandemic, of course there are trade issues and cross-border issues, both of which you highlighted just then, minister. Have you personally had an opportunity to speak to the Victorian Cross Border Commissioner about border closures?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have not spoken with the commissioner, but I have spoken with the minister.

Dr CLOSE: What was the nature of the discussions and agreements should such circumstances occur again? Were there any discussions particularly in the context of the lockdown that occurred here in the past few days?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Those discussions with the minister were very fruitful, and we have a very good working relationship in trying to solve any issues that do come up.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a reasonable expectation that there might be a different approach taken should one or both states need to go into a form of restrictions? Is there going to be a different approach from the one experienced with the Victorian restrictions?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As ministers on both sides of the border responsible for primary industries, we are responsible for primary industries not health or any other sector, so we have influence but not control. It is in that light that we will continue to work together where we need.

Dr CLOSE: On a related matter, on page 66, one of the targets for 2020-21 is:

Progress recommendations from the [FIAC] to develop the forest and forest products sector.

Recommendation 5 of the Forest Industry Advisory Council of South Australia is:

That the South Australian Government establishes an agreement with the Victorian Government to address harmonisation of cross-border issues in consultation with industry.

Has such an agreement been established, accepting that agreement may not have countenanced a pandemic?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The Forest Industry Advisory Council of South Australia (FIAC) is certainly an important body in this space, particularly in the current environment. It has been working to provide input to me as minister to help me in decisions going forward. That council has a wideranging representation across industry and these members have been chosen because of their varied expertise.

The council represents, knowledge across the value chain, ranging from local experts to international forest managers, ensuring government receives information on a wide range of interests. The council has met five times and in March 2020 provided its advice to government with recommendations aimed at strengthening growing the sector.

The government is now considering ways to supercharge growth of the South Australian $2.3 billion forest and wood product sector, with advice received on industry promotion, water usage and licensing, cross-border arrangements, fire management, biosecurity, infrastructure and transport, research and training. The state government is currently preparing a response.

I would like to add, particularly in relation to the previous question, that I have been informed the department is also working very well with industry, Health and SAPOL on those cross-border arrangements to make sure that those arrangements are suitable for Forestry to do what they need. They have been able to get exemptions to allow them to do things beyond the normal transition across those borders.

Dr CLOSE: Continuing on the same subject, when does the minister anticipate having an agreement with the Victorian government on harmonisation of cross-border issues, as was recommended?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are very much working to try to make sure that the working arrangements across those borders are appropriate, but we will also acknowledge that we have signed, and likewise endorsed, the Agriculture Workers' Code to allow workers to cross borders on the basis of the Agriculture Workers' Code, which was an initiative out of national cabinet.

Dr CLOSE: On the same budget line in terms of expenditure—although I note that in Budget Paper 3 on page 109 there is also reference to the ForestrySA community service obligations, which are also about fire, but if we can stick to the expenditure within this sub-program in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4—how much has been set aside for the forestry industry to deal with the impacts of the bushfires that damaged the industry during last summer? I appreciate that some answer was given earlier, but could you be specific about the amount of money that will be spent in this budget.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I stated previously, there was the announcement today of $1.1 million for fire prevention going forward. There is also the opportunity for the individual plantations that were affected to seek a grant of up to $75,000 under the bushfire recovery program I mentioned earlier. That will be open to those individuals and is still available to apply for right up to the end of December.

Dr CLOSE: On the subject of the $1.1 million announced today, is that in this budget? Is that part of the $3.483 million?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that approximately $900,000 of the $1.1 million is new money that is not in the budget.

Dr CLOSE: Can the minister explain why, given that the budget has only just been laid before the people, an extra $900,000 was suddenly added in?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that it has not been added in, as such. It is actually money that comes out of ForestrySA's reserves.

Dr CLOSE: Is the minister able to tell us which of the towers are being replaced and what is the cost for each?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The details of this plan have been worked through with industry to best allocate those funds.

Dr CLOSE: Will all the network of towers in the Limestone Coast that have major compliance issues be fixed?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that the requirement for whether or not there is a need to fix certain towers will very much be determined by industry's expectations and acceptance or involvement in new technologies going forward.

Dr CLOSE: The $1.1 million does not necessarily fix all the tower issues in the Limestone Coast?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The $1.1 million is also available to adopt new technologies if that is the way it is considered by industry to go forward.

Dr CLOSE: I understand, minister, that today you also announced a harvest and haulage contractors study. How much is that study going to cost, and is that in this budget?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that it is about $30,000 that is coming out of normal expenditure.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, to return to the issue of Chinese export, of the funds that are on page 66 in the sub-program, how much is being set aside to assist the South-East industry to deal with the China export ban?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: On 11 November 2020, China suspended imports on all Victorian log timbers out of their ports. The majority of South Australian exports of timber to China leave via Portland, just over the border in Victoria. The suspension of trade occurred as 12 shipments from Victoria this year have contained bark beetle.

We take biosecurity very seriously, and an issue has been raised and is being investigated. I have every confidence it will be rectified. The South Australian government is working with the federal government and industry on treatment and inspection that is required to ensure that we meet biosecurity standards required of any country we sell to. We need to address this issue as quickly as possible. Also, directly in relation to the support to industry, this is very much a federal issue of getting this China market back open, so we will support the federal government and industry in all endeavours.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, are you aware whether bark beetle was found in South Australian timber in Portland?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that there is no certainty that there is not bark beetle here in South Australia. The ban is out of ports of Victoria, and it is unable to determine particularly which shipments necessarily identified bark beetle or not.

Dr CLOSE: Has the state government considered subsidising the freight so that the forestry industry is able to use the Port Adelaide or other South Australian ports to continue to supply China?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that both Queensland and Victoria have bans out of their ports placed on them, but the exporters from other states are too nervous to actually send shipments to China at this point in time.

Dr CLOSE: Has the department estimated the job losses associated with this plan should it continue?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The fact is that this issue has only occurred just over two weeks ago and there is uncertainty about how long this will be in place. At this point in time, we do not necessarily have that data. We have been speaking to industry as recently as yesterday and, likewise, they were not indicating a particular number, but they were indicating it could be up to hundreds.

Dr CLOSE: Has any money been set aside to help those companies caught up in this trade ban?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I stated, this is very much an issue the federal government is currently dealing with, in relation to trying to get this trade reopened. It happened only two weeks ago—

Dr CLOSE: So none yet?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Because the process has not got to the point—there have been no requests at this point from industry for direct support in any shape or form.

Dr CLOSE: Have you had the opportunity to talk to the federal minister about this and what expectation there is for this to be resolved hastily?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Certainly at a department level there have been some discussions at AGSOC. I have also had a very brief conversation with the Minister for Trade.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Statements, page 109. Will the minister please provide details on ForestrySA's involvement in the recent feral animal program around Cudlee Creek?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the honourable member for this important question and his particular interest in feral animal management—even if it is not the right feral animals, in his eyes. I am pleased to report that ForestrySA contributes to cross-agency pest animal control programs. During the 2019-20 year, ForestrySA played an active role in a significant and successful feral goats control exercise.

This was a three-month operation across 750 hectares within the Cudlee Creek Forest Reserve, Montacute Conservation Park and the Kangaroo Creek Reservoir reserve. The operation involved ForestrySA, SA Water and the Department for Environment and Water. Almost a thousand feral goats were removed, dramatically reducing the impact on native vegetation following the bushfire. The removal of these pests is also of benefit to the valuable horticulture crops in this region.

A helicopter and trail bikes were used to muster the goats off the steep and rugged terrain into yards. The goats were sold to a commercial processor, with the proceeds going back into land and weed management programs. Following two successful musters, a follow-up aerial culling operation will remove other goats from terrain inaccessible to mustering areas.

ForestrySA provided accommodation at Cudlee Creek Forest Reserve for contractors involved in the operation, and ForestrySA staff assisted with patrolling during the operations. Some goats do remain in the area and, as the number can double in less than two years, a second control operation is planned for 2021.

Dr CLOSE: Back on page 66, I would like to talk about FIAC. In the targets, the first is to progress the recommendations. How many times has the Forest Industry Advisory Council met in total and in the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is they have met five times and three times in the 2019-20 year. I have attended two meetings since being minister.

Dr CLOSE: Therefore it is reasonable to assume that it will continue to meet; it continues to operate?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It does, yes.

Dr CLOSE: What were the KPIs for the council in the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Their primary purpose in their first year was to come up with recommendations. It came up with 16 recommendations, and their purpose ongoing now is to help the department and the minister to deliver these recommendations.

Dr CLOSE: I will ask a couple more questions, if I may. In the lead-up to the 2018 state election, I understand that there was an election commitment to doubling the economic value of the forestry industry. In fact, in Budget Paper 3, page 106, there is a figure that indicates a decline by 9.24 per cent of the value of forestry commodities and that that had occurred before we started to see the impact of COVID. What is the reason for the decline in the value of the commodity?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed there may be many reasons behind why that could be the case, including bushfires, etc., leading to different amounts of timber coming into the market. As that timber recovered, there was a significant drop prior to COVID in relation to hardwood woodchip, which also may be in response to fires as other timber comes into play.

Dr CLOSE: One of the recommendations from the advisory council was that the government investigate ways to avoid water waste for the benefit of all water users. What progress is being made in acting on that recommendation?

Mr ROBINSON: The National Institute for Forest Products Innovation has a project that is focusing on water. When those results are available, that will help provide evidence to feed into the process which is led by Department for Environment and Water.

Dr CLOSE: There are other recommendations made by the advisory council such as recommendation 8, which 'commits to funding and progressing a staged industry plan for preferred infrastructure works', and recommendation 9, which 'establishes ways to reduce licensing and regulatory costs'. Has any money in this budget been set aside to deliver on those recommendations?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that at this point in time FIAC have not gone into the detail, so we are working through the detail with them.

Dr CLOSE: Would it be fair to say that at present the budget expenses of $3.483 million for this program do not include any money set aside to act on the recommendations of that council as yet?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: I would like to ask a couple of questions about Kangaroo Island, and I appreciate there will be also be some government questions that people want to ask. The fourth dot point relates to working with the forestry and wood products industry to deal with the impacts of bushfire and the pandemic of course. You have briefly talked about the impact on Kangaroo Island, which was obviously substantial. What discussions have you had with Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers relating to their situation as a result of those fires?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have had several discussions with them directly and certainly the department has also had discussions. Some of those discussions are about KIPT seeking to build a wharf at Smith Bay on the north coast of Kangaroo Island to implement the ongoing commercial forests on the island. The wharf is a major development, with a defined development process. Before government makes a decision, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport must complete further analysis, which is currently underway. Any more specifics in this space need to be directed to the Minister for Planning.

Dr CLOSE: On the very subject of the wharf, do you support that wharf application?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That wharf application will be a decision for cabinet.

Dr CLOSE: Will it be a decision for cabinet?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It will be a decision for the planning minister to give approval to go forward.

Dr CLOSE: Appreciating that the Smith Bay wharf development is very important to KI Plantation Timbers, have you had any discussions specifically about the impact of the bushfires and any support they may need as a result of losing timber and having so much standing dry timber there?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As part of the meetings I have had with KIPT directly, they have also had discussions around options for transporting the timber using the Kingscote jetty, or alongside it, using a slipway to bring in a barge to offload timber. I have certainly had discussions with them in that space.

Dr CLOSE: I have a couple more questions, but I am happy for government questions. I have very few left.

The CHAIR: Given that it is after seven, we are drawing to a close.

Mr CREGAN: Can I take the committee to Budget Paper 3, Budget Measures Statement, page 121. Is the minister able to update us on what steps ForestrySA is taking to examine bushfire risk in view of the circumstances that developed during the Cudlee Creek fire?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the honourable member for this important question. Fire management is critical to ForestrySA's operations and responsibilities for both asset protection and broader community protection. The Cudlee Creek fire in December 2019 was devastating. ForestrySA's firefighting personnel attended the fireground for 12 days. ForestrySA firefighters attend both private and public land while maintaining ongoing fire coverage across Kuitpo and Mount Crawford forests.

More than 102 hectares of ForestrySA plantation and 350 hectares of native forest reserves were affected, resulting in approximately $1 million in damage to plantation forest assets and infrastructure. ForestrySA has an active role in fire planning and management, alongside other government agencies, and participates in several forest industry fire initiatives. ForestrySA's fuel management and risk reduction approach addresses native vegetation in fuel reduction and fuel reduction throughout the life of the commercial plantations.

In the 2020-21 year, an expanded fuel reduction program focuses on a more flexible and integrated approach to both harvest residue and prescribed burning together, where possible, in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Operational preparedness for the 2020-21 fire season included the recruitment of seasonal fire crews to bolster the corporation's firefighting capability fleet and equipment maintenance and training.

As a professional firefighting brigade, ForestrySA has specialist forest fighting appliances, including the military-grade Fire King fire tanker appliances, bulk water carriers and quick response vehicles. During 2020-21, ForestrySA has budgeted $740,000 for a refurbishment program to enhance the performance, safety and longevity of the Fire King appliances.

In preparation for the 2020-21 fire season, ForestrySA has actively contributed to and noted observations and insights from the independent review of the 2019-20 South Australian bushfire season and the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. As a CFS brigade, ForestrySA's fleet is part of the government's announcement of investment in enhanced technology, including automatic vehicle location technology for real-time vehicle tracking during emergencies, with field trials to commence during this bushfire season.

Dr CLOSE: Still on page 66, with the FTEs that are listed in that table: 5, 4.6, 5 and then 5.6 for this financial year's budget, does that comprise all the staff responsible for ForestrySA or is ForestrySA listed separately somewhere?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That figure is PIRSA's position. ForestrySA is separate.

Dr CLOSE: How many are in ForestrySA?

Mr SPEED: Around 32 FTEs at the moment. We expanded for the fire season.

Dr CLOSE: What is the responsibility undertaken by the PIRSA staff?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: That is listed on the budget paper. They lead the development of improved productivity, growth and employment opportunities in South Australia in the forestry industry, while growing regional development, building partnerships and protecting the government's interest in forestry.

Dr CLOSE: I have one more question, if I may, which again pops back to the Forestry Industry Advisory Council. There is a recommendation there that the South Australian government work with all levels of government to implement a bipartisan strategy that stabilises policy settings over the long term. Has any bipartisan work commenced in South Australia to date on forestry industry policy?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In relation to the recommendations, it is very early days in this space. My last meeting with them was about three weeks ago, when they were still presenting the recommendations to me, so I certainly have not had the opportunity at this point in time to have conversations in that space.

Dr CLOSE: We look forward to a bipartisan approach; thank you.

The CHAIR: Are there any further questions from the opposition benches? I do not believe there are any further questions from the opposition, but the member for Hammond has a question.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a very serious question. I am into feral weeds and animals, and I refer the committee to the Budget Statement, page 109. Will the minister elaborate on ForestrySA's control of proclaimed weed species on public land?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for this important question about weed control. ForestrySA undertakes annual weed control programs within its plantation estates and native vegetation reserves. This work takes place in the Mount Lofty Ranges and also in the native vegetation reserves in the South-East region.

On average, weed control programs are undertaken across more than 3,000 hectares of forest every year. As the member would appreciate, appropriate methods of control are selected for each situation, whether it be for native vegetation, habitat restoration, threatened species management or the removal of weeds for commercial plantations. The weed control work in native forest reserves is funded under the community service obligation program. The weed control work in plantation areas is funded by the commercial operation arm of ForestrySA.

ForestrySA regularly collaborates with other public land managers, including SA Water and the Department for Environment and Water, along common boundaries to implement cooperative weed control programs. A good example of this can be seen along the South Para River riparian corridor in the Mount Crawford Forest Reserve. Weeds of national significance are a high priority for control and information resources are regularly shared with Landscape SA authorised officers.

Mr ELLIS: I would like to take the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 66, particularly where it references employment opportunities in South Australia's forest industry. Minister, I wonder if you might detail ForestrySA's involvement in the recent Warner Bros production of the blockbuster picture Mortal Kombat and perhaps articulate if you sought out a starring role and what the audition process was like, if so.

The CHAIR: That is an excellent question to finish the estimates week, member for Narungga.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for his questions. Three separate ForestrySA locations were used during the filming of Mortal Kombat. The production crew also purchased ForestrySA timber to build their film sets.

ForestrySA's forest reserves are popular, film-friendly locations providing a diverse range of landscapes. ForestrySA has maintained a positive relationship with the South Australian Film Corporation for many years, supporting numerous feature films, television and advertisement productions that showcase our amazing state. The picturesque Mount Crawford Forest Reserve was a key location for the filming of the Warner Bros Mortal Kombat production in late 2019.

Three separate locations were used for filming, including the Rocky Paddock Campground and the Mount Crawford airstrip. The Rocky Paddock Campground was transformed into a 14^th century Japanese village for the duration of filming. ForestrySA assisted the production team during set construction and deconstruction for the duration of filming and provided fire suppression support for days of filming during the fire ban season.

I am excited to advise that the film is scheduled for worldwide release in April 2021. ForestrySA is exploring opportunities to host a COVID-safe outdoor screening upon the film's release. I would also just note that, no, I was not an extra. The last time I was an extra in a movie was in the original Storm Boy as a child in the playground.

The CHAIR: That is where you get those film star good looks, minister. In fact, the original Storm Boy was on television around a week ago.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Unfortunately, I did not get the same close-up my brother had—a full screen shot of him in the classroom.

The CHAIR: Which leads me to my closing remarks. What do they say about politics? That it is show business for ugly people? That is to take nothing away from the film star good looks of the member for Narungga, who asked the question.

There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions and Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions complete. I thank the minister and his advisers, I thank the shadow minister and I also thank the members of the committee, who have remained stoic since 9 o'clock this morning. I am also going to thank the Clerks for the assistance they have given me throughout this week. I lay before the committee a draft report for committee A.

Mr ELLIS: I move:

That the draft report be the report of the committee.

Motion carried.

At 19:16 the committee concluded.