Estimates Vote

Legislative Council, $5,803,000

House of Assembly, $8,094,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $13,013,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $3,324,000

State Governor's Establishment, $4,118,000

Auditor-General's Department, $18,616,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $351,203,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $9,185,000

Premier, Other Items, $5,562,000

Minister:

Hon. S.S. Marshall, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Richardson, Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr I. McGlen, Deputy Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Department.

Ms M. Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly, and Secretary, Joint Parliamentary Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome, everybody, to the first day of estimates. I am going to give an instruction now that when people are asking or answering questions they are able to relieve themselves of their masks but must have them in place at any other time. The first thing I need to do is call on the member for King.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you, Chair. I move:

That the Chair write to the Speaker to request the following changes to the timetable agreed in the house on 20 July, pursuant to standing order 268, paragraph 6: that the Department for Child Protection be examined on Thursday 29 July, the Department for Energy and Mining be examined on Friday 30 July, and that the committee meet at 9.30am on Thursday 29 July.

Motion carried.

The CHAIR: 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 Premier and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Premier and Leader of the Opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 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 Premier 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 24 September 2021.

I propose to allow both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call to asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the Premier, not the Premier's advisers. The Premier may refer questions to advisers for a response. 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.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the House of Assembly apply in committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members on the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as it applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

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 now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio for consideration is the Legislative Council, House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services. The minister appearing is the Premier. I declare the proposed payments open for examination.

Membership:

Ms Bettison substituted for Mr Szakacs.

The CHAIR: I call on the Premier to make a statement, if the Premier wishes, and introduce his advisers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will make a very brief statement. Firstly, I thank the staff here at Parliament House and all members, including the opposition, for accommodating the changes that were necessary due to the seven-day lockdown in South Australia. I am very grateful to all the people who have made accommodation for this change so that we can get estimates through in a timely manner.

I introduce Mr Rick Crump, who is of course the Clerk of the House of Assembly and also the Secretary of the Joint Parliamentary Services, who will be working with me on the first line of questioning regarding Parliament House.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, do you wish to make a statement?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I do. Again, it will be relatively brief. Over the last seven days we have seen an extraordinary set of events here in South Australia with the advent of the seven-day lockdown. I want to put on the record that this was an extraordinary event but absolutely the right thing to do. The South Australian Labor Party and I provide total bipartisan support to the actions the Marshall Liberal government took, on the advice of Grant Stevens and Nicola Spurrier, to put the state into lockdown in order to deal with the cases that we had from the emerging cluster in and around the north-eastern suburbs and other areas.

There were extraordinary sacrifices paid by a number of South Australians during the course of the lockdown, not least of which are those small business operators who had to close their doors, workers who had to give up their labour and people who put in an extraordinary amount of effort at testing stations and the like. They deserve a lot of credit, but I think every last South Australian deserves credit for the way that we approached the lockdown in a united, considered and thoughtful way, with generosity of spirit in our hearts.

We ultimately achieved the best possible result, which was our emerging from that seven-day lockdown without any extension to it, notwithstanding the restrictions that are currently in place, which also enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I want to put on the record my thanks to all those people who were involved from government, from the Premier right through all the agencies, the bureaucracy and the people on the ground who were delivering critical services. They deserve an extraordinary amount of credit, along with every other South Australian.

Of course, the lockdown only concluded as of midnight last night, which was fantastic news; I say that as a father of a six year old trying to get homeschooled. I was very relieved yesterday when I saw the Premier announcing that children were going back to school. My wife and I were high-fiving, to say the least. However, we did only emerge from the lockdown yesterday evening and we have come straight into estimates.

As the Premier would be aware, I wrote to the Premier as we were going into lockdown, in light of the fact that we had estimates originally scheduled for last week, making it clear that the opposition was more than happy to amend the estimates schedule accordingly, which of course the government elected to do, as made sense considering we were going into lockdown.

Given that there is still a significant imposition of restrictions in place, given that the threat of the virus in South Australia has not completely abated, given the nature of the Delta strain in particular, I want to put on the record that the opposition remains more than willing to facilitate a delay in estimates.

I am very conscious that the chairman of the Transition Committee joins us here today. Other key Public Service agency heads will have to expend a large amount of their time and resources committing their efforts to estimates during the course of this week. I am also very conscious of the fact that the Premier has an extraordinary amount on his desk at the moment no doubt, with the focus on dealing with the circumstances around the virus. I simply would again reiterate that we would be more than willing to accommodate a delay in estimates.

The work of estimates is critical. It is an incredibly important function of the parliament. It is clearly an important opportunity for the opposition to perform its role, in terms of the scrutiny of taxpayers' dollars and how they are expended, but it can wait. It could easily wait a week or wait two weeks.

I am concerned that we do not want to put an unfair or inappropriate imposition on such important functions of government through having estimates hastily held this week. I simply make the offer that we would be happy to delay it, but if the Premier and the government wish to proceed, as is currently planned for today, the opposition clearly is ready, willing and able to do so and we will proceed with estimates as is custom and practice.

The CHAIR: Thank you, leader, and thank you, Premier. I invite questions from members.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have a couple of questions regarding parliamentary services generally, but we will be able to go through these relatively quickly, which I am sure the Clerk is deeply disappointed about. My first question goes to the fact that in early 2020 there was a series of members of parliament who had claimed the country members' allowance and then were required to make reimbursements. My question is: did any members of parliament make any reimbursements to the parliament in financial year 2021?

The CHAIR: So, leader, just for the record, we are referring to Budget Paper 3—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is Budget Paper 3, Appendix C, table C.2, on page 160.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that the issues the leader is referring to are not this financial year and not last financial year but the financial year before. These are issues to do with claims that were made up to and including 30 June 2020. I am advised that, yes, there have been some reimbursements of those and some of them track back into financial years for the previous decade. That is in line with what I presented at last year's estimates, where there was, in addition to the ones that were canvassed very broadly in the media, one member who had one day, another member who had another day and another member who had two days. As I said, those went back over an extended period of time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Which members were those?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think I am permitted to state these: the member for MacKillop with one day, the member for Hammond with one day and the member for Flinders with two days. All the others have been very publicly canvassed, as you would be more than aware.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just to be clear, and to go back to my original question, were there any members of parliament who made any reimbursements for the most recent financial year, that is, the 2020-21 financial year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, not for the 2020-21 financial year. Which financial year are we talking about?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 2020-21.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the financial year that has just completed?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Are you asking, 'Did anybody make a reimbursement for an incorrect claim in that year?' The answer to that is no. 'Did some of them'—and I have just outlined to you—'make payments for things that might have occurred a decade earlier?' The answer to that is yes. Some of those have been very publicly canvassed, but the ones that are the minor adjustments I did refer to in last year's estimates. Do not forget that last year's estimates actually were held not in the normal part of the year but much later in the year and so, in fact, we have had two estimates in a sort of eight-month period.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Notwithstanding the fact that the reimbursements that were made in the last financial year, the 2020-21 financial year, were not in regard to claims from that financial year but from prior periods, will the Premier commit to publicly disclosing all details of each member: the amount and date of any reimbursements made following a country member's allowance claim?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think most of those have been made through the media, quite frankly, but if they have not, I am happy to look at that matter.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you are happy to commit that there will be a full disclosure?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have just given my answer to that. The Clerk advises me that there is potentially one member who could have gone into that next financial year. He will make an inquiry with regard to that and, if we have something to update you with, we will provide that for you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Which member is that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, let's just find out whether it is actually the case before we provide that information, because we do not have it at the moment. We do not know whether it is in the next financial year and if it is, we will let you know.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You have been advised that there currently is a member of parliament who currently has a claim under investigation, but you will not disclose which member of parliament that is.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised by the Clerk that there was a reimbursement made last financial year, but for what exact period it related to and whether some of it was for last financial year is yet to be determined and we will determine that. The Clerk advises that this is a member who is making a series of payments, paying back amounts, but they relate to a number of different time periods. Some of that could have been indeed last financial year, but that work has not been done yet. The Clerk is happy to do that work.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Which member is that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is the member for Mount Gambier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Again, this will be my last question in this area. Why won't the Premier just commit that all elements of the country members' allowance—both claims and disclosing of reimbursements—will not be released publicly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would really be a question for the Speaker. I do not direct the Speaker; it is a matter for the parliament. Publication of those details is under the control of the Speaker, as you would know. We have changed the arrangements here in Parliament House so that it is the Speaker who publishes the reconciliation, I think now on a monthly basis—a very different situation from when we came to government which was just published on an annual basis. So it is now published on a monthly basis and that publication is really a matter for the Speaker.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that, except to say that you are the Premier and you were elected with a majority. The idea that the Premier can divorce himself from the functions of the parliament is a little naive in light of the fact that you have been elected Premier. We have a Speaker from your party. 'This is the parliament; it has nothing to do with me,' I think is a little cheeky. Has the House of Assembly been cooperating with the ICAC investigation in regard to the member for Narungga? To be more specific, have all documents requested from the ICAC been provided to the ICAC from the House of Assembly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is a little bit like reheating last week's dinner. These are the same questions you asked last year and my answer is exactly the same. I just refer you to Hansard from last year. It is not for me to interfere in an ICAC inquiry and it is not for me to inquire as to whether or not documents have been provided. It would be completely inappropriate and I think the member appreciates that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: This is an opportunity, Premier, for us to ask questions regarding the parliament with the Clerk present, so it is not an opportunity for us to scrutinise your lack of answers in the parliament during question time. This is a different process. This is a different opportunity. So I again ask with the Clerk present, regarding any documents that have been requested from the ICAC, has the house provided them to the ICAC? It is a simple yes or no proposition.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer you to my previous answers—this year and last year. I remind the committee what we are talking about with these budget lines and I am sure the Chair would appreciate this—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If you would like to be elected chair, put your hand up. Otherwise, we will move on to the next question.

The CHAIR: Leader, the Premier is answering your question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think it is important to determine what these questions are about. As the Leader of the Opposition should be aware, the Premier does not direct the parliament. Parliament is sovereign to itself. We provide a budget to the parliament. We provide a budget to the House of Assembly, to the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee and, of course, to the Legislative Council. But as for matters that are the domain of the parliament and the Speaker, they are matters that the Leader of the Opposition has plenty of opportunities to take up in different fora from this. We are here to answer questions with regard to the budget, not the operation of the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Same budget line: has the parliament engaged counsel to give it advice regarding the ICAC investigation?

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Has the parliament engaged counsel or sought legal advice in regard to the ICAC investigation?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, that would be a matter for the Speaker. It is not a matter that we—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a matter of expenditure and, if the parliament has expended money hiring counsel, we would like to know. The Clerk is there. Could you ask him please?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have any information to suggest—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, ask the Clerk.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that that would be the case. I have no information to suggest that that would be the case.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Has the parliament claimed privilege over any documents sought by the ICAC?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I just refer you to my answer provided to the committee last year on that matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What was that?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, that is not a question that relates to the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I disagree with you, sir.

The CHAIR: No, do not disagree with me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I am sorry. I am about to.

The CHAIR: My ruling is that your question was about whether privilege had been claimed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Now that is not to do with the budget, as I understand it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is, sir. The parliament functions on a budget and, if the parliament exercises privilege over documents, it does so because it has the resources. I would like to know from the Premier, through the Clerk, if the parliament has claimed privilege over any documents sought by the ICAC investigating former Liberal MPs.

The CHAIR: I am going to let the Premier answer that if he wishes but I am still concerned—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I bet you he does not want to answer it.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I am still concerned that that is not a specific budget question. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is the same line of questioning that the member for West Torrens went down last year. He is very itchy when it comes to matters about the ICAC—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am. Many of your members are before it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and he seems to know how it operates extraordinarily well from personal experience, but the reality is my answer to this question this year is exactly the same as my answer to the question last year—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What was that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and that is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What was it?

The CHAIR: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that this is not a matter at all—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You can't remember?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —for an estimates committee.

The CHAIR: Can I interrupt for a moment, Premier, please. I am interrupting the committee now. We are going over old ground here, but my point is that any member of the committee is able to ask a question, provided that I rule it in order, and the Premier is able to answer. And while he is answering, the member, having asked the question, will listen to the answer.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is very clear to me that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition generally have run out of questions about 25 minutes in. We got a pretty good indication of that right at the outset when the Leader of the Opposition made quite a long and lengthy introduction telling us about his children, and their going back to school, rather than getting down to questions. They have had an extra week to prepare questions and so far all they have done is go to questions that were asked last year. Answers were provided last year and they are not going to change this year.

The CHAIR: So your response to the question?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I refer to my previous answers.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many FTEs were employed by the parliament in 2021 compared with 2019-20? I am happy for this to be taken on notice. Can a breakdown be provided between permanent and casual, how many employees were stood down without pay during any period in 2019-20 and 2020-21, and what was the total expenditure in wages in 2020-21 compared with 2019-20? Again, I am happy for that to be taken on notice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There are 114 FTEs fully funded within the current budget. A breakdown for those: for the 2020-21 financial year, we had an average of 13.6 in catering, 23.2 in reporting, 13.7 in Joint Services, 10.9 in the library, 26.6 in the House of Assembly, and 17.9 in the Legislative Council. You want a split between full time and part time. We might take that question on notice. What was the other part of your question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If you are taking it on notice, then you can just refer to the Hansard. I will move on to the Auditor-General's Department.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services complete. The next line of questioning relates to the State Governor's Establishment. Do you have any questions on that at all, leader?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No.

The CHAIR: If not, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the State Governor's Establishment complete. We move now to the Auditor-General's Department. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Premier, have you had a change of advisers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would like to advise the committee that Andrew Richardson, the Auditor-General, and Ian McGlen, the Deputy Auditor-General, join me now.

The CHAIR: Are there any opening statements on this issue?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: Otherwise we will go to straight to questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 70, Program 1: Auditing Services. Will the Auditor-General be conducting or is the Auditor-General considering an audit into the effectiveness of the state government's debt management and its ability to pay down debt and deliver surpluses, given reports that the GST deal signed by this government will leave South Australia worse off?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Auditor-General advises me that there is no specific separate inquiry into the matters raised by the leader. However, he will be looking at the state budget, as he does every year, and providing a state finance report at around about the same time as he presents his other reports. I remind the committee that we do have, in addition to the Auditor-General looking at our budget, the various ratings agencies that look at our position.

I note that when we came to government South Australia's budget was rated the lowest of any state in Australia. In fact, it was rated below Tasmania, which is extraordinary. I note that we have recently very significantly improved our standing, moving to AA+ with Standard and Poor's. Moody's released their report on us only last week, which is Aa1, which is I think equal with other states, such as New South Wales.

We were not put on a watch. In fact, we were very pleased with the response we had from the independent umpires, if you like—the ratings agencies. They were very impressed with the way that our targeted response was not encumbering future budgets in South Australia and that we did also plan to return to a surplus situation. They also recognised that there was a need, as we were advised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and Dr Kennedy, who is the department's secretary in Canberra, to have stimulus and support packages for our economy during this particularly difficult period but that they needed to be targeted and they needed to be short term, and that is precisely what we have provided.

I note that the Commonwealth Parliament Offices did an analysis of the various state responses in our budgets—the fiscal stimulus and support we provided—and that South Australia was, in fact, rated the second most generous of all the states, just slightly behind New South Wales.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I noted the Premier's very lengthy answer. Clearly, he wants to avoid all the questions we have prepared, notwithstanding his earlier remarks, in his very lengthy—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Anytime the leader likes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We will take you up on that, Premier, so thank you.

The CHAIR: Leader, ask your questions. There is no need to provide extra commentary.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would simply note that the Premier did not go into any detail whatsoever regarding the main tenet of the question, which was the fact that he has signed South Australia up to a long-term deal that will diminish South Australia's GST return in the long term, which is a dereliction of his responsibility to future generations of this state. My next question is: is the Auditor-General conducting or considering any audits into government advertising expenditure?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Auditor-General looked into or will the Auditor-General look into the cost-benefit analysis, if there is one, for the new basketball stadium?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, but it would not be outside a normal scope of an audit, should that be made available.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer the Premier to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 71, Sub-program 1.2: Special Investigations. Has the Auditor-General given consideration if he will investigate the probity of the process of appointing directors to Racing SA? I understand that the Hon. Frank Pangallo from the other place has written to the Auditor-General regarding this.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is under consideration.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the Auditor-General is considering investigating the probity of the process. Very well.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, he has not responded to the correspondence yet. He is still considering it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When does the Auditor-General expect to have completed that consideration?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Within the next week or so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the Auditor-General been requested to conduct or is he currently considering or conducting any other special investigations?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Auditor-General advises that, no, there are no further special investigations that are being considered and that they are reasonably non-discretionary anyway. The only instances where a special investigation can be put in place is if the Auditor-General is requested by the parliament, the Treasurer, a minister or the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you. Sir, the opposition has concluded its questions of the Auditor-General.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Auditor-General's Department complete.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As it turned out, sir, I was not wasting anybody's time. There were only six minutes of questions, way less than the allotted time.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr N. Reade, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Ms D. Dixon, State Project Lead, Lot Fourteen Project, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

The CHAIR: The next portfolio for examination is the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Office for Digital Government and the Adelaide Convention Bureau. The minister appearing is the Premier. I invite the Premier to introduce his advisers and make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. Joining me this morning are Nick Reade, chief executive. I also have Steve Woolhouse, who is the Executive Director of Communities and Corporate, and Di Dixon, who is looking after the project associated with Lot Fourteen. She is the state project lead. There is also Eva Balan-Vnuk, who is the Executive Director of ICT and Digital Government. I have no opening statement.

The CHAIR: Leader, do you wish to make a statement? Questions, then.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to Budget Paper 3, Appendix C, table C.2 on page 160 regarding the Agent General. Was there any selection committee or selection process for appointing the Agent General?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As the leader would be aware, this is an appointment that is made by the Premier. We did speak to one person who provided some input from an HR and recruitment perspective. Ultimately, we considered a number of people for this important role for South Australia.

I suppose there were two different considerations: to appoint (1) somebody who was based in the UK who might have a lesser knowledge of the offerings here in South Australia, or (2) somebody based in South Australia who might have a lesser knowledge of what was going on in the UK. We ultimately formed an opinion—there were some interviews conducted—to appoint the Hon. David Ridgway.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who were the other candidates?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that would be inappropriate. I think that there is a level of privacy that needs to be shown to people who apply—well, not necessarily apply but who were approached for this position.

Can I just say that there was one other particularly good person who was considered. This is a person who was based in the UK but who was originally born in South Australia, and although they had maintained a very good interest in South Australia they just did not have the depth of knowledge and experience of businesses in this state.

We are very keen to very significantly expand our activities and results in the UK, especially with the new UK free trade agreement being signed fairly soon. I know that there has been a high level of negotiations, and most matters have been resolved. In fact, it could have been signed by now, but my last information was that it had not been signed.

However, regardless of that, I think that there are great opportunities for further export of South Australian goods and services and investment attraction into South Australia, as well as ultimately, when the borders lift, great opportunity for tourism from the UK into South Australia. As I said, we took all these things into consideration and I formed the opinion that David Ridgway would be the best person to promote our interests in the UK.

I can advise the committee that the scope of the UK operation will be diminished going forward, because, of course, they previously also looked after Europe. Subsequent to Brexit, we formed the opinion that what we should do was to set up a separate European office. We have already announced and included in the budget lines with regard to this, and we will be setting up an office in France.

I do not have anything to advise on an appointment there yet, but it is something we are considering at the moment. The UK office, which previously also looked after Europe, will now be concentrated on the UK, and I think that there are great opportunities there.

Can I also take this opportunity to thank Bill Muirhead for his long and meritorious service to the people of South Australia. He did an outstanding job. I note recently that he has accepted a position on the council of the University of South Australia. I note that he intends to be spending more time back here in South Australia, and I think that presents us with unique opportunities to tap into his great love of this state and also his incredible contacts in the UK.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who was the HR advice from?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I do not think that is relevant to provide to this committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, sorry, Mr Chairman—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We sought external advice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am just answering the question, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: The leader has asked a question and the Premier is answering it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay. So—

The CHAIR: No. The Premier is answering.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think it is relevant. We seek advice from various HR consultancies in South Australia. There is a list the leader is more than happy to have a look at that outlines the panel of people who provide services to South Australia. We did not ultimately move forward with a full contract for this person, to do an extensive recruitment project. That is my understanding. However, we did seek some preliminary advice. But, as I said, for the reasons outlined before we formed the opinion that we would appoint the Hon. David Ridgway to this important post for South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The HR advice that you received with respect to the Agent General appointment you referred to earlier, did you get that for free? Was it just free HR advice, or was money expended for that? Because if money was expended for that, I think that the people of South Australia are entitled to know who provided it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, there was no expenditure. I am advised by the chief executive that we did consider whether or not we would go out for advertised recruitment. There was some discussion with a member of the panel. That was not proceeded with. We did not incur any expenditure. I think that we have made an excellent appointment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So there was a panel. Who was on the panel?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what you mean by 'the panel'.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You just referred to the panel.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, if you were paying attention to my—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am paying attention to every word you say.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If you were paying attention to my answers, you would see from Hansard that there is a panel of people who provide HR advice to the government. We did not go and find a new person to provide that initial discussion. There is a panel of people who are approved, just like there are for many services to government. It was not that long ago that you were in government; I would have thought you would have understood how that panel operated.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was there any discussion between you and David Ridgway about his vacancy?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure what you mean. Of course there was discussion regarding the vacancy. We did not just appoint him without consultation.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The vacancy he creates in the Legislative Council?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, that was not my consideration at all.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So you never discussed with David Ridgway the vacancy that he would create in the Legislative Council at any point?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was pretty obvious there would be a vacancy but that was not part of our consideration at all.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When did you make the decision to appoint David Ridgway to the position of Agent General?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think we had multiple extensions—I do not have them with me at the moment—to the time that Bill Muirhead had served. He was originally appointed, I think, by the Hon. Mike Rann as the Agent General for South Australia. I think he was subsequently extended by the Hon. Jay Weatherill and he was extended two or three times, I think, by me. His term completed at 30 June. The time frame was something that we had to resolve by 30 June and I think we got in just in time. We had to ultimately appoint an acting Agent General, James Mraz, to take over that role until David Ridgway could assume that role. I think that takes place some time in August.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What will be the total salary package for David Ridgway? Will he be paid more or less than the previous Agent General?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding is it is exactly the same as the previous arrangement with Bill Muirhead. There was no change to that arrangement.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What other benefits will David Ridgway be entitled to—car, driver, expense account, staff, flights? Can the Premier provide a detailed breakdown of this? Again, I am happy for this to be taken on notice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, it is exactly the same as what is provided. There is an overall budget that is provided to the Agent General and that is, I think, documented. There is no change whatsoever to the terms, the conditions, the expense accounts that the Leader of the Opposition refers to compared with what was already in place.

As I said, we expect to do very well in this market but the scope of the operation there has been diminished by no longer looking after the UK, so we did not see any need to further expand that position. It is a part-time position, as the leader would be aware, not a full-time position. The remuneration for the Hon. David Ridgway will be exactly the same as for Bill Muirhead, who preceded him.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How is it that David Ridgway, in your opinion, is the best possible candidate that we can find as a state for the Agent General position, but he was not fit to be the tourism minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure how this is a budget-related question, but I am more than happy to soak up the leader's time on this and give him the reasons for the appointment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The reason why it is pertinent, Premier, is that it is an important role. It is paid for out of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and so the appointment is utterly material to this process. Again, I make the point that this is a minister who resigned in rather poor circumstances because he was not up to the job of being the tourism minister. You took the portfolio off him for presumably a reason or two and then he gets appointed to this incredibly important role. How is it that David Ridgway is the best possible person that South Australia can find to represent us in this role?

The CHAIR: Before I call on the Premier to answer that, not so much in relation to that question, leader, but in relation to previous questions about salary packages, etc., it actually comes under the auspices of the Minister for Trade and Investment. So the Premier appoints in general and then the Department for Trade and Investment is responsible for administration and salary packages. There will be an opportunity to ask that question in Estimates Committee B on Thursday.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have moved on anyway.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: On that, it is a slightly complicated situation inasmuch as I do actually pay for the Agent General but transfer the money, would you believe, to another department just to administer the payroll. I am happy to answer any questions on this, but it is a slightly quirky one with regard to the Agent General.

The Leader of the Opposition has a number of matters slightly confused. David Ridgway did not resign as the Minister for Tourism. After the devastating bushfires, I spoke to David Ridgway and I said that I wanted to take on this part of his portfolio. Obviously he was disappointed because he very much enjoyed that portfolio, but I had formed the opinion that a huge part of the recovery from the bushfires would be based on regional tourism in South Australia and that, like Will Hodgman in Tasmania who took on the role as Minister for Tourism, I would do the same thing here in South Australia. I have enjoyed that portfolio. It has been an extraordinarily challenging time.

That was in January 2020. David Ridgway did not actually resign from the cabinet until much later in the year. There were two other resignations from the cabinet at that time, and he had said to me for quite some time that he would be resigning from the cabinet at the first reshuffle. We were all envisaging that that could have been some time later but it was not, so he took the opportunity to resign from the cabinet at the time. I wanted to correct the record because there were some completely incorrect assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the resignation of the Hon. David Ridgway.

The second part of the question was really about why I formed the opinion that he was the right person for the job. Sir, as you would be aware, we have a Growth State agenda in South Australia, with nine separate areas that we think our government should be focused upon. This work was actually overseen by David Ridgway as the Minister for Trade and Investment in South Australia. He did the work, along with Steven Joyce, who was the finance minister in New Zealand, who came in to do a review.

They identified nine areas that we really wanted to focus on in terms of trade and investment. He has an intimate understanding of those nine areas. He has an intimate understanding of all our capabilities in these nine target areas in South Australia. I do not think there is any person who would have a closer understanding of what they would be, and these are the areas that we want to be focused on not just in the UK but in all our overseas offices.

For those reasons, and because of his close family links in the UK, we thought that he would be the ideal person. It is very difficult to find somebody with a comprehensive skill set in this way. Usually you find somebody who has an excellent set of connections in the UK or an excellent understanding of the situation here in South Australia. David Ridgway performs well on both those counts, and that is the reason that we decided to back him in to this very important position.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My next question goes to a different budget line. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, Highlights 2020-21, dot point 1 where it states:

Supported the Premier's leadership of the management and recovery from COVID-19 through National Cabinet.

My first question on this topic to the Premier is: given the delayed vaccine rollout and the outbreaks that we have seen with Delta in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, notwithstanding South Australia and Victoria coming out of lockdown last night, and obviously the increasingly difficult situation around the world, how long do you expect hotel quarantine arrangements to continue?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Nobody knows the answer to that question. As the leader would be aware, the Doherty Institute has recently completed some information, which will be provided to national cabinet this coming Friday. The Prime Minister has said that we may not make a final decision at this national cabinet meeting coming up on Friday but hopefully fairly soon to really chart that pathway out where we move away from lockdowns.

People have been speculating about different thresholds in terms of vaccination, but what we know is that vaccination rates are increasing around the world. Until recently, we have had a green zone with New Zealand. In South Australia, we will be trialling a home-based quarantine for South Australians, or Australians maybe, who have been vaccinated in Australia, travelled overseas and come back. This is potentially a great opportunity to reduce our reliance on quarantine hotels, but nobody has a crystal ball, so at the moment we continue to use those quarantine hotels.

I do note that we have very significantly reduced the number of international arrivals coming back into South Australia per week. Recently, we moved from 530 per week down to 265 and again this week we had an even lower number because we had no international arrivals on either Monday or Tuesday. This was a request that I made to the Prime Minister last week, in light of the lockdown situation and the increased pathology requirements here in our state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How much taxpayers' money has been spent on medi-hotels since they began?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not a matter I preside over. This is the quarantine hotel?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that would be a matter to address in the SA Health estimates, which I think is next week.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you have any idea how much this is costing the state, even a ballpark figure, as the Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Treasurer referred to this in his statement to the house only a few weeks ago when he outlined that there had been an increased expenditure related to that. I refer the leader to the Treasurer's speech in the house, but otherwise I refer him to the health estimates, which will be held next week.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How much money has been allocated over the forward estimates to the operation of medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, that would be a matter for the health estimates. This is not—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you have any idea?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not any idea. That is not what estimates are about. We are examining certain aspects of the budget. The questions that you ask do not relate to the lines that are open for investigation at the moment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many breaches from quarantine have been detected in the last financial year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that. Again, that would be a very useful question for you to ask either via the select committee on this matter—I think there are members of the Australian Labor Party—or Health. There are a range that have already been canvassed. Some of those are very minor and some of them are more significant, but overall our quarantine hotel arrangements have served South Australia extraordinarily well.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: They are questions that we can ask in those other forums and we will, but my question is: have you asked how many quarantine breaches have been made?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What budget line are you referring to at the moment?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you asked how many quarantine breaches have occurred in medi-hotels?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the state government put forward a proposal or requested the commonwealth to set up a standalone quarantine facility in South Australia for returned travellers and—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Have I?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Has the state government put forward a proposal or requested the commonwealth to set up a standalone quarantine facility in South Australia for returned travellers?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are back to reheating. These are questions you have asked already in question time and the answer is going to be the same, but I am more than happy to help the Leader of the Opposition out with a lengthy answer if he requests because he clearly—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just a yes or no would be fine.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —has no other questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just a yes or no is fine. It is a pretty straightforward question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have looked at a range of options to accommodate the returning Australian citizens who are stranded overseas as well as particular target groups. I think these have been well canvassed in the media, but I am happy to go through them again. We wanted to bring back seasonal workers to South Australia, so we did set up a separate standalone facility in the Riverland. I think more than a thousand international arrivals were accommodated in that facility.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not do that for returning Australians?

The CHAIR: Order! The leader has asked his question and the Premier is answering. There will be no interjections.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. We did set that up and that has worked extraordinarily well. I think it is now no longer in operation. The second area that is being contemplated and worked through at the moment is for the return of international students and a pilot in South Australia. We hope to be the first in the country. We know that South Australia has been very fortunate to have an increasing number of international students under the current government. That has made a very significant positive impact in the first two years of our government.

Unfortunately, with the border controls, the number of international students has significantly declined, so we would like to get them back. We do not propose to use the current quarantine hotels for that and so a separate standalone site has been considered for that. We are doing our fair share in terms of repatriating stranded Australian citizens. In fact, the last time I looked at the figure, which admittedly was several weeks ago, we had brought back around 8 per cent of all returning stranded Australian citizens, so more than our fair share in terms of population or our percentage of the overall economy.

The federal government has an offer on the table for those states that want to increase their capacity for bringing back international students. I think there was a deal that he put together for Queensland and a further deal he was considering for Western Australia. In South Australia, we are not proposing to increase over and above the caps that have been set at the moment. As I said, we have taken back more than our fair share, but we will still look for alternatives for bringing back our seasonal workers and our international students in a safe way because we want to do everything we can to support our economy.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why have special quarantine arrangements for overseas workers and international students but not for returning Australians?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, they are a completely different cohort. What we do, and it has been a hallmark of our arrangements since day one here in South Australia, is listen to the experts. It is very well for the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party to go out on a daily basis and say, 'We are offering bipartisan support,' but then go out and put in alternative suggestions, helpful or otherwise, on pretty much a daily basis that do undermine the public confidence with regard to the way we are managing the COVID-19 pandemic here in South Australia. So far, the Australian—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Premier, I understand that you want to exercise a bit of political bravado in estimates, but that is pretty unfair. I think that is unfair. Not on any occasion has anyone in my team done anything to undermine public confidence in the health advice: we have done the exact opposite. Just on that, Premier, you have been out there day after day saying that I want to bring in—

The CHAIR: Leader, I am going to interrupt. I am going to ask the leader and the Premier both to cut the commentary.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I agree, sir. All I want is an answer to the question.

The CHAIR: Thank you, so you will come back to the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: All I want is an answer to the question. Do you have one?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, that was not a question; that was just like a statement, wasn't it? I have no idea what it actually was. It was a sort of whingey, whiney statement, like somebody was not paying attention to you for five minutes. What was it?

The CHAIR: I have asked you both, the Premier and the leader, to cut the commentary.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is what we are used to, sir—

The CHAIR: I understand that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —no questions.

The CHAIR: Questions and—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There was a question and I am wanting an answer—

The CHAIR: Order! The leader and the Premier will come to order. Questions and answers are going to be directed through the Chair.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question—

The CHAIR: No, I have not finished yet, leader. There will be no conversations across the floor. Perhaps, leader, you would like to come back to the question you asked a little while ago now.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am still waiting for the answer, yes.

The CHAIR: Let's repeat it for my benefit.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why would we be providing a particular form of quarantine that arguably brings with it greater amenity for one cohort of people—international students returning, for instance—but a very different form of quarantine with arguably less amenity associated with it for returning Australians?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was saying before, these are completely different cohorts and we listen to the international experts in this area. We listen to the state-based experts in regard to the risk and we adjust accordingly. What we have heard from the Australian Labor Party is that they would establish a standalone quarantine facility. We do not know how much it is going to cost to build, where they are actually going to put it.

The entire time they are undermining the public confidence that we have in our quarantine hotel situation in South Australia. When is the Australian Labor Party going to tell us how much, where and how long it is going to take to actually build? They are great at going out and undermining the great work of SA Health and the great work that our entire state is doing in this area, but the reality is that they are not doing anything to advance this cause whatsoever.

The CHAIR: Order, Premier! Thank you. You have concluded your answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to answer the Premier's questions. We know that $200 million can provide a substantial number of beds, as we are seeing in Victoria.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is this a question or what is this?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is an answer to your question, so if you were paying attention to—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The public confidence in hotel quarantine—

The CHAIR: Leader, you are addressing this to me, not to the Premier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sir, the public confidence in hotel quarantine is not undermined by anyone in the Australian Labor Party. It is undermined by repeated medi-hotel breaches that have resulted in statewide lockdowns.

The CHAIR: I have asked you both—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, Premier. I have asked the Premier and the leader both to cease the general commentary. Estimates is an opportunity to ask specific questions about specific budget lines. Before I call the leader, I will remind everybody that Health is appearing on Thursday afternoon in committee B.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do note that Professor Nicola Spurrier, I understand and am advised, has noted on the record that the biggest risk of outbreaks in South Australia in the past have been from the virus within medi-hotels. We know that Victoria went into a statewide lockdown as a result of a medi-hotel breach in South Australia. So given that, does the Premier have any intention to request of the commonwealth a standalone quarantine facility, not to provide additional quarantine on top of medi-hotels but instead of medi-hotels?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Here we go again: the Leader of the Opposition deliberately undermining the great work of SA Health. They have run quarantine hotels extraordinarily well. For some reason, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that by changing the postcode of where we put the quarantine hotel somehow magically the risk completely and utterly diminishes. Well, it does not.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have never said that, sir.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are listening to the experts. We will continue to listen to the experts. They have advised us extraordinarily well—since day one. The commonwealth has been very clear that they will provide more money for quarantine facilities if we increase our numbers that we are bringing back. But we have done our fair share. We have absolutely done our fair share in South Australia. The Australian Labor Party can be out there saying that they want to build new quarantine facilities and bring more people back. They can put their policies—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have never said that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to the people of the state at the next election, but we will stick to the position that I think has served our state extraordinarily well since the advent of this coronavirus. We will not be taking money from the commonwealth government to increase the numbers that we are bringing back—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: And that was not the question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —into South Australia. We are satisfied with our share of the national repatriation of stranded Australian citizens. We want to take our share, but we do also know that the Delta variant is particularly problematic. What we constantly do, though, is look at the way that we operate our quarantine facilities in South Australia. I am very proud of the continuous improvement that we have made right from day one. You would note, sir, that last year we were independently audited or assessed, if you like, by Jane Halton, who did that assessment of all the jurisdictions in Australia, and South Australia did extraordinarily well.

But there are still learnings from different jurisdictions, and we have put them into place. We now have in South Australia a dedicated COVID-positive site, the Tom's Court Hotel. I think there are currently 25 people within that site. That is going very well because it separates those people at higher risk from other people who remain at that lower risk.

We will constantly look at ways to improve the quarantine situation, but we will not be so naive to think that by moving it somewhere else somehow the risk completely diminishes or is extinguished. That is not the case. We certainly will not be looking to take any more than we need to in South Australia, and we will not be undermining the great work of SA Health, who give us the advice with regard to the way we run our quarantine hotel.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Again I make the point that no-one is undermining advice. We are asking questions in estimates, as much as the Premier wishes that we would do that, I might add. I refer the Premier to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, targets 2021-22, dot point 1:

Continue to support effective and coordinated decision making within the executive government throughout emergency events including the ongoing management of COVID-19.

How often does the Transition Committee meet?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As needed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So it does not meet on a weekly basis and then more often if needed or anything like that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has been paying attention, but the way it works is that the Transition Committee deals with removing restrictions, and so those restrictions are not put in place on a regular basis; they are put in place in response to a risk. So at the moment you could imagine that the Transition Committee is meeting on a pretty regular basis. That makes sense because some very heavy restrictions were put in place last Monday, and they were further escalated on Tuesday at 6 o'clock last week. Now the Transition Committee has the task of removing those restrictions in a very risk-oriented way.

There are periods of time when the police commissioner, as the State Coordinator during this major emergency declaration, has made it clear that this is going to be situation normal for an extended period of time, so you might not have a Transition Committee meeting for weeks, maybe even longer than that.

We have made it clear that the Transition Committee will meet on an as-needs basis just as the national cabinet meets on an as-needs basis, just as we have had to pivot organisations and institutions like our own cabinet in South Australia, or Executive Council here in South Australia, to respond, to pivot, to be flexible to the changed environment, and that will continue.

I am very grateful to all the people who serve on the Transition Committee. We will obviously have a review of the Emergency Management Act after this overall incident is concluded. We do that after each of the incidents that trigger the Emergency Management Act, and it is quite possible that there may need to be some legislative changes, but we will not be making that at this point in time. The Transition Committee continues to meet on an as-needs basis.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you attended transition committees?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why not?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not a member of the Transition Committee. I think I can remember the make-up of it off the top of my head, but it is chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Sitting on it also are representatives of Health. In particular, I know that Professor Nicola Spurrier or her delegate is there; also Dr Chris McGowan, who is the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing; the Under Treasurer; and the Chief Executive of the Department for Trade and Investment. There may be some other people who are called in from time to time.

We charge the Transition Committee with the responsibility of removing the restrictions in a way that considers three particular elements: health, economy and wellbeing. It is not an easy task. There are plenty of people who want to give advice to this committee. Some people think they have gone too hard; some people think they have gone too soft. We have to take all these matters into consideration. They ultimately provide the final advice with the removal of these restrictions, and they ultimately get incorporated into a direction, which of course is put in place, and the only person who can put a direction into place is the State Coordinator, who is the police commissioner in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do any of your staff attend Transition Committee meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I suppose Nick Reade is a member of my staff. He is the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No—any of the Premier's office staff?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Regarding the directions committee, as distinct from the Transition Committee?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Directions are not a committee. The directions are put in place by the State Coordinator during a major emergency declaration, and that is the police commissioner, Grant Stevens.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So there is no directions committee per se?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. There are people who are involved with the drafting of the directions. Sometimes, we can give a verbal direction, but ultimately they will all be followed up with a direction that is put in writing and there are people who are involved in that direction.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Given that you are not on the Transition Committee and given that the directions are made by the State Coordinator under the Emergency Management Act, when you publicly say 'we' at press conferences, as you have this week—'We have decided,' 'We have discussed,'—you do not really mean you, do you, because you obviously are not party to the decision?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not really sure what you are getting at. I would speak to all the players involved in this on a daily basis, if not an hourly basis.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If the Leader of the Opposition is trying to assert that somehow I have nothing to do with the management of this, I think he really does not understand the way that we have worked very closely as a team. Within that team, we all have our designated roles: the police commissioner has his roles, Nicola Spurrier has hers, and so do the chief executive, the minister and I, of course.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: At last month's Budget and Finance Committee hearing, your chief executive told the committee that you have no direct input or are not briefed before Transition Committee meetings. Why are you not briefed or consulted about the agenda or topics for Transition Committee meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Why am I not?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's be clear: I think we are pretty sure what is going to be discussed each week. I have already outlined to this estimates committee, and I am happy to do it again, that the directions are put in place by the police commissioner. They are directions which do create restrictions, whether they be restrictions regarding density, caps on public activities or the wearing of masks.

In the most recent direction, which will ultimately be noted by the cabinet, there are a huge number of matters canvassed. They are canvassed pretty broadly in the broader media and the population here in South Australia, so I do not need to be presented with an agenda for what is being considered at the Transition Committee when it is held. I am more than aware of what is on that agenda. I am really not sure what this actually has to do with the budget. I am not sure what budget line the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, and I am really not sure where he is going with this line of questioning.

The CHAIR: In answer to that question, Premier, the leader identified page 8, dot point 1, and I am deeming the question relevant.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, sir. Given you are not in the Transition Committee meetings and not a member of the Transition Committee, you do not provide input to the Transition Committee meetings, how is the outcome of a Transition Committee meeting communicated to you? The Transition Committee meeting happens, presumably somewhere in State Admin or elsewhere—I am not sure—and what happens then? Does the State Coordinator then call you and say, 'This is what we have decided,' or do you just get briefed or an email? How does it actually work?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There could be a number of people who would call me. It could be the chief executive. It is often the police commissioner. It could be the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing. There are a number of people who would be able to convey the outcomes of that Transition Committee meeting. Often they are held at the same time as cabinet, and so the chief executive splits his time between those two committees.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the decision will be communicated to you and then presumably, if it is of significant public notoriety, or it is deemed that the information needs to be communicated publicly, then either the State Coordinator would do that or the Chief Public Health Officer would do that, or in some instances you would do that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Nearly always, after the Transition Committee we meet in my office; especially over the last week, when we have had lockdown, we have had meetings prior to press each day. We want to make sure we all have the most up-to-date information. There is information coming in in real time with regard to the lockdown, as you can imagine.

We have been very keen to get not only the test results but also the number of tests, the testing sites, the number of people in a directed quarantine situation, the various tiers of those directions, and the sites we are particularly focused on. I find getting people together around the table—often 10 or more, who will sit in my office adjacent to the cabinet room—means we can all get onto the same page quickly.

One of the hallmarks of the way we have conducted ourselves as a state really goes back to day one. I remember very distinctly the presentation that was given in cabinet by Dr Chris McGowan on this matter. It was the very early days, and he said that the number one thing we had to do was to suppress the peak of what was coming and push it out to the future as much as possible, that the number two thing was to stand up as much critical care capacity in the state as we possibly could, and the number three thing was to really educate the people of South Australia about the pandemic—in fact, I am not even sure it was called a pandemic in the very early days—about this disease, because we needed to take the public with us here in South Australia.

That is why, since day one, you would see a lot of our press conferences—especially when we found ourselves in a situation where we had to explain complex matters—have a perspective from me as the Premier of South Australia, from Professor Nicola Spurrier as the Chief Public Health Officer, and, of course, the police commissioner as the State Coordinator. Then we have other people who come in as well: people like Stephen Wade, the Minister for Health and Wellbeing; Dr Tom Dodd, the clinical lead for SA Pathology; and we might have somebody like Dr Louise Flood, who is head of the Communicable Disease Control Branch. We will bring in those subject matter experts to educate the people of South Australia.

That has put us in a very good position here in South Australia, and I think that the average understanding in this state is extraordinarily good about how this disease is contracted, how it is transmitted and the types of activities individuals can take to protect themselves against it. The primary one, of course, is vaccination.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will simply respond by saying that I thank the Premier for his answers: they are insightful, and I think they are incredibly important. Again, I want to take this opportunity to put on the record my genuine gratitude and thanks to the people who are making the decisions that have stood our state in such great stead.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Premier that the model has worked of having Grant Stevens and the Transition Committee and others making all these huge judgement calls—with significant pressures and a lot to balance in terms of competing objectives to try to get that balance right. They have done it exceedingly well and, again, I put on the record my thanks for that.

I note that the model has stood us in good stead, and for as long as that model is maintained we can have confidence that will continue to be the case, regardless of who the Premier is—because, of course, the Premier is not party to the decisions themselves. I will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, targets 2021-22, dot point 1:

Continue to support effective and coordinated decision making within the executive government throughout emergency events including the ongoing management of COVID-19.

In February, Premier, when you were asked if everybody in South Australia who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated this year, you told Adelaide radio—and I quote—'Absolutely.' My question is: will everybody who wants to be vaccinated in South Australia be able to get vaccinated this year?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is my expectation. Obviously we are very much constrained by the availability of the vaccination doses. Originally, as a country we considered five separate vaccination opportunities or offers. We have narrowed it down to two that we kicked off with, the AstraZeneca and then the Pfizer. We started with the Pfizer. In fact, I was one of the first people in the state. We were asked to kick off and have leaders around the country vaccinated at the time, and so I kicked off with the Pfizer. I think we offered it also to the Leader of the Opposition. He took a little bit longer to have his vaccination.

Ultimately, we then were the first in the country to kick off the AstraZeneca. Now, there has been changed advice with regard to the suitability of the AstraZeneca vaccine. That has been provided by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), so that has thrown a bit of a curve ball at us here in Australia, but we do have very significant increases in doses available coming to Australia at the end of next month. Then we have the Moderna vaccine, which is available and which comes online in September.

At the moment in South Australia, we are above the national rate in terms of doses administered per head of population, but we cannot be complacent, and my strong advice to the people of South Australia is that, when they are eligible, please book in and have your vaccination. It is very, very important for our state, and we are going to see a very significant increase in the supply, so we will need to also look at the opportunities to open up to further cohorts down the track as these new vaccines come online.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier referred to my getting vaccinated. For the record, I booked my vaccination the moment that 40 year olds—I am 40—became eligible to be vaccinated. I booked my vaccination immediately at the first available opportunity.

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I take this opportunity to take up the Premier's very generous offer of moving an extension. I move:

That there be an extension of the examination of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for a further hour, concluding at 11.30am.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir, I do not support that at all. The question was with regard to the assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that I was fudging an answer to the Auditor-General's examination. As it turned out, he ran out of questions about three minutes later.

The CHAIR: Premier, you do not need to respond to this. I will deal with this as Chair. The member for West Torrens has moved a motion for an extension of time?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To 11.30, sir, taking up the Premier's very generous offer.

The CHAIR: Regardless of that—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He said, 'I'm happy to extend—

The CHAIR: No. Regardless of what the Premier may or may not have said, the member for West Torrens has moved the motion and that has been seconded, as I understand, by the member for Ramsay. You have signed that, member for Ramsay?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak for the motion?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just to say that I thank the Premier for his very generous offer.

The CHAIR: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the motion? The member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think that the motion is a little bit cheeky on behalf of the Manager of Opposition Business. He well knows that he has been in discussion with the Manager of Government Business for months on this, and to try to spring this on at the last minute I think is ridiculous, and so I think, and potentially on behalf of people sitting on this side of the committee, it is not something we are going to support.

The CHAIR: There are three members supporting the motion, and three members opposed to the motion. The vote is tied. As Chair, I have a casting vote, and I vote against the motion.

Motion negatived.

The CHAIR: Continue, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That says a lot about the Premier's sincerity when he says he is willing to have an extension of time. I am not too sure what that means in terms of the veracity of all the Premier's other comments that have been made today.

The CHAIR: I do not know, leader, whether the rules—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So, moving on—

The CHAIR: Leader! I do not know whether the rules about reflecting on a vote of the house would apply in committee but, regardless of that, you may ask a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was reflecting on the Premier's offer and then withdrawal of the offer, or not willing for it to be supported. Regarding the vaccine rollout, does the Premier still believe that the vaccine rollout in South Australia is excellent?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are working very well in South Australia. As I said before, we are above the national distribution rate per capita. We did offer for the Leader of the Opposition to have his jab earlier. He has just outlined to the house that he booked in at the first available opportunity. I am reliably informed by my office that in fact we offered it very early on to the Leader of the Opposition. That was not taken up. He did want to be included in a publicity shot, but that was not appropriate at the time. We did offer him a speedy Pfizer vaccine, but he did not take it up. He did get to his first shot recently and we are grateful for that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My second.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There has been some hesitancy. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition was feeling a bit hesitant about having that shot—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not 100 per cent sure—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are a disgrace, you know that? You talk about undermining public health advice. You are an absolute disgrace.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Why didn't you have it?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The second one I had a couple of weeks ago—last week.

The CHAIR: Leader, order! Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Premier has just impugned the Leader of the Opposition, claiming he has some sort of vaccine hesitancy. I have to say that is pretty low. Grow up, child.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Chaffey! I have said to this committee a couple of times already this morning that we need to cease the commentary. I am going to say that I have had my first AstraZeneca and am about to have my second. Leader, your question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: To be honest, I think it is more of a reflection on the Premier than on anyone else.

The CHAIR: No, just ask a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have lots of questions to ask, sir.

The CHAIR: And 14 minutes to go.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Chaffey, order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Premier aware that South Australia has the lowest percentage in the nation of over 70 year olds fully vaccinated?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have all that data sitting in front of me. As I was saying to the committee before, we do have a dosage administration above the national average. We have worked very quickly to establish mass vaccination clinics both in the country and in the city. We have an offer that all people in country SA over the age of 16 can be vaccinated. There are spaces available at the moment.

There has been some hesitancy, and that is natural, but I think the overwhelming experience that people have after they go along to a vaccination clinic or they go and see their GP is that they have been very pleased with the process, the information that has been provided and the supervision in terms of post-vaccination observance. Overwhelmingly, people are very positive.

We have an abundance of AstraZeneca here in the state. Again, I reiterate that my office did offer to the Leader of the Opposition to have his vaccination much earlier than he ultimately decided to. I thought it was fair and reasonable. We did not include him in the photo shoot. Maybe he was upset about that, but certainly I have confirmation from my office that he was offered that Pfizer vaccination weeks and weeks earlier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are you kidding me? Are you absolutely kidding me?

The CHAIR: Order! The Premier has completed his answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The offer was made from me to you, Premier. I am moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, program summary, expenses. Given the time, I will go straight to this question: what has been the total cost of the Building What Matters advertising campaign so far? Will there be another phase of the Building What Matters campaign rolled out this financial year, and how much has been budgeted for that?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the total expenditure in terms of the Building What Matters expenditure in South Australia is around $16.7 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, with the most recent budget, that increases further. I do not know whether there will be a further round of advertising. I think the money associated with that is part of our overall advertising campaign, but I have been told that it has been broken down—$1.195 million was expended on that campaign.

In total, we see that the expenditure of the government in terms of advertising communications does bounce around a little bit based upon the issues that are circling at the time. For example, we have had a very extensive campaign with regard to fruit fly, which the member for Chaffey is very pleased with, because we are facing a real issue here in our state. We have enjoyed some very good results in terms of being a pest-free area in South Australia for a long period of time. We know that the situation is very concerning there, so we have been able to put more money into that type of advertising, and of course the very extensive campaign around the COVID management in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is the Building What Matters campaign concluded, or is there another round of advertising expected to come?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have not been advised of another round, but the leader does raise a very good point: it is very important to continually let the people of our state know that the government is injecting money, on behalf of the taxpayers, into important programs that are going to create jobs in South Australia. We see the response of this positive messaging in South Australia. It actually results in the highest level of consumer, business and investor confidence that we have seen in the state for a very, very long period of time.

However, we do put all our expenditures like this through a process, and it is a process that I think serves the taxpayers extraordinarily well. When I compare our expenditure with that of the previous government, I am very satisfied with the way we are progressing in terms of our public communication and the prudent way we spend the taxpayers' dollars. I do not rule out further expenditure in terms of the massive, massive infrastructure build that is currently underway in South Australia. I think it is really important to let people know about the schools, the hospitals, the roads and the bridges that we are building, replumbing the entire state.

The interest rates are low at the moment. The nature of the questions that came earlier from the opposition was really about the debt level. It is clear that they would not be potentially spending the same amount of money that we are, but we have made a public policy decision. As I referred to earlier, it has been independently assessed by the commonwealth parliamentary office as the second highest—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have other questions.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —stimulus and support package in the entire country, second only to New South Wales.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I just want the Premier to be crystal clear about something. The Premier said he has not received advice on a further phase of the Building What Matters campaign. I appreciate the Premier has not ruled out another round of advertising, which is within the government's remit, but does the Premier rule out being aware of any second phase of the Building What Matters campaign due to start shortly?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I certainly would not rule it out because I think—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But are you aware of any?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that it is really important to—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You said that, but are you aware of—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Not personally, no.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In terms of future expenditure, is the department aware of any budgeted future expenditure for a further Building What Matters campaign? The chief executive is right next to you; maybe he knows.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I said, I have not been advised, but I certainly would not rule it out.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can you seek advice right now?

The CHAIR: No, leader, that is not how it works.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier can ask the chief executive a question.

The CHAIR: What happens here is that the leader asks the Premier a question and the Premier either answers it himself or chooses to refer it to the chief executive.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly, I hope that we are going to continue to stimulate confidence in South Australia. I would be surprised if we were not going to continue to promote the great work that is happening. Businesses around South Australia are really loving the fact that there are more jobs being supported by this taxpayer expenditure, and of course it is delivering great results.

I will take that question on notice from the Leader of the Opposition. If I can get a response before we conclude estimates today, I am very happy to put it on the record. We are not ashamed of our advertising and communications plan whatsoever. I think it is very prudent expenditure and I think the results speak for themselves. We have very high levels of employment in South Australia. I think the unemployment rate at the moment is 5.3 per cent, which seems to me—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The worst in the nation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to be extraordinarily low. Whilst the opposition wants to talk that down—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is the worst in the nation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —we only need to—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, it is the best in the nation. Is that a lie?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —look at the last four years that they were in power where—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Where it was not the worst in the nation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —the average figure was up by 6.8 per cent. It is down at 5.3 and they still want to complain. They want to complain on a daily basis. We do not want to complain. We want to get on with delivering jobs for the people of South Australia, and if that includes promoting the great work that is being done in South Australia with the Building What Matters program—$17.9 billion—then I am very happy to do that every day of the week.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would simply say that this is an estimates process, and I would ask the Premier: is the Premier willing to turn to his immediate right and ask the CEO of DPC, who is a highly credentialled individual, whether or not he is aware of any bookings that have been made or plans to restart the Building What Matters campaign? If the Premier is not willing to do that—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That goes through GCAC and I have already committed to coming back to you before the end of estimates today. I do not know why you find that so difficult that you need to have something this second. It will happen today. Do not get so stressed about it, calm down.

The CHAIR: As we all should.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was just asking whether you could ask him. My next question goes to the international students program. When does the Premier foresee the international student trial to commence?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am hopeful that it will start next month, but of course my focus has been very much on the current cluster we have had in South Australia—the outbreak, the lockdown and then coming out of the lockdown—but a lot of work has already been done on preparing that site and making sure that it is suitable for bringing back some of our international students.

We know that they make an enormous contribution to our economy. We know that for every three or four international students who come into South Australia it creates a full-time job in South Australia. We also know that they mainly but not exclusively reside in the CBD, and this is one of the areas here in South Australia that has been disproportionately hit, so we are very keen to get them back to support our universities, to support our economy and to support jobs in South Australia.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When the Premier says 'next month', I do not know if he means August or September, but let's assume it is either of those. Is the Premier aware of where the students will be coming from?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that detail, but I am more than happy to follow that up.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 'Follow that up' as in provide a response before the end of estimates today?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know that that would come today because, do not forget, that is a slightly complicated arrangement with regard to talking with the universities—the students of the three South Australian universities, as well as Carnegie Mellon. I do not know what has been determined for the pilot, but obviously we will be doing everything we can to reduce any risk with people who are coming back into South Australia. I will find out a response to that and we respond in the normal process.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Have you asked at any point where the students would be coming from? If the trial is starting in a month, all things being equal, presumably that takes a lot of preparedness. You have to have people come here, and people just do not get on a plane easily these days; it obviously takes time. Have you asked at any point where those students are coming from?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes. We have had briefings that have come to cabinet on this matter but, as I said, there has been a lot of water under the bridge over the last 10 days. I am happy to get an update. We have direct flights that are still coming into South Australia from countries like Singapore, where we know we have a lot of students, especially medical students at the University of Adelaide, who are keen to get back. With regard to what that pilot and the countries that they are coming from specifically looks like as of today, I do not have that, but I am very happy to commit to getting that information and coming back to the Leader of the Opposition in a timely manner.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Regarding the international student program, will that be operating on a full cost recovery basis?

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

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So there will be no expenditure of taxpayers' dollars in this regard at all?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There probably will be some incidental costs associated with this, but my understanding is that the vast majority of all costs will be borne by the people who are coming back and the university sector.

Having said all that, I really do want people to understand that this is an extraordinarily important sector for our economy. It creates dollars from overseas coming into our economy, and it creates jobs here in South Australia, so we are looking to support it. The advice I have received is that the vast majority of all costs will be borne by the student returning and the university. There are bound to be some incidental costs associated with it borne by the taxpayers of South Australia, but this is an investment in growing our economy in South Australia, bringing these students back and creating more jobs, especially in the CBD.

The CHAIR: You can have one more.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier might give a concise answer and we will have time for two, sir. Premier, given the events transpiring in regard to the Delta strain in New South Wales, and certainly given the continuous extensions that have been announced to lockdowns in New South Wales because of the Delta strain, one would reasonably presume that our border will remain closed with New South Wales for potentially some time to come. Your government's press release dated 18 June states:

One of the Commonwealth's pre-conditions for when students arrive is that the state border must be open for domestic travel, noting the potential need for localised closures related to jurisdictionally defined COVID-19 hotspots.

How could the international student trial be going ahead potentially in a month's time if we have our border closed with New South Wales?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The leader raises a good point. That was one of the original considerations by the commonwealth, but it was a very different situation back at that time. We do have a commonwealth-declared hotspot in New South Wales. There are multiple commonwealth-declared hotspots; in fact it may even be the entire state, although I do not think it is at the moment, and that is the situation that exists. We will work through that issue with the commonwealth, we have a good working relationship with the commonwealth, and we will consider that matter. I think our time for this level of examination is complete.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can I put on the record my thanks to the public officials here today and the work that goes into preparing estimates. I know it takes a lot of effort and time, so thank you.

The CHAIR: Thank you, leader, and thank you, Premier. I would remind the opposition that if they have any omnibus questions that, as long as they are in by the end of the day, that is fine. Having reached the allotted time—and, might I say, the previously agreed time—for this examination, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio programs Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Office for Digital Government and Adelaide Convention Bureau complete.

Sitting suspended from 10:47 to 11:30.