Estimates Vote

Legislative Council, $6,050,00

House of Assembly, $8,430,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $19,947,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $3,809,000

Minister:

Hon. P.B. Malinauskas, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Savvas): Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee A. I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of this land upon which the committee meets today and pay our respects to them and to elders past and present.

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

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Savvas): 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 8 September 2023.

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 for 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 to 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 apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from 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 applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament website.

I now proceed to open the following lines for examination. The portfolios today are the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services. The minister appearing is the Premier. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Premier to make a statement, if he so wishes, and to introduce the advisers who will be assisting today.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Chair. I might keep my opening statement very brief to facilitate more questions from the opposition, but I do want to quickly point out that, in terms of my opening remarks, the government is very glad to have handed down its second budget. As Premier of the state, I am very grateful for the work that has been undertaken by all public servants in the preparation of the budget. It is a complex and substantial exercise, but I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Under Treasurer, Rick Persse, and the Treasurer of South Australia, the member for Lee. Both have worked exceptionally hard over the course of the last five to six months in particular on the preparation of the budget.

The budget is handed down at a really strong time for the state. There are economic challenges on the horizon, which have been commentated about globally, but we confront those challenges in a strong position. The budget, relatively speaking, is in a strong position. The state's economic performance is in a historically strong position, with some of the lowest unemployment rates on record, an unemployment rate that at the moment is one of the lowest we have ever seen in the history of the state while at the same time achieving one of the highest participation rates in the history of the state. The fact that more people are seeking to participate in the labour market than ever before I think speaks to the confidence of the electorate and the community more broadly.

We are particularly pleased to see growing numbers of young people participating in the labour market, including from parts of our state where there is a greater degree of economic or social disadvantage. The economic trajectory and confidence of the state is underpinned by burgeoning industries while at the same time seeing strong performance in other more traditional areas of the economy, such as agriculture, which has had a good year.

Of course, agriculture is cyclical and dependent upon variables beyond the government's control. We have to make sure that the economy has the capacity to remain strong, underpinned by elements we can control, and that is very much the focus of the economic agenda of the government, which I am looking forward to exploring throughout the course of this estimates proceeding.

The final thing I would like to acknowledge is the hard work being undertaken by the agencies for which I am personally responsible, particularly the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Preparation for these estimates takes a fair bit of work and a lot of people have been doing that behind the scenes diligently. To the team within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and other associated agencies, led by Mr Damien Walker, I am exceptionally grateful for how much work they have undertaken since this committee last met, and I am very grateful for their service to the state.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just very briefly, I would like to thank all the public servants who have been involved in this process for contributing to the proceedings that will unfold over the next couple of hours.

The CHAIR: I remind members questions are through the Chair to the Premier on this occasion, and it is up to the Premier to see whether he would like his advisers to assist. Also, please be very specific and clear in your budget reference.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: My first question is under the Joint Parliamentary Services, Budget Paper 3, page 159, table C.2, which is the estimates of payments. How many FTE staff in total were employed by the parliament in 2022-23 and how many are budgeted for in 2023-24?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that for the year 2022-23 there are 141.1 fully funded FTE positions across the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is that in the previous financial year compared with the forthcoming financial year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised it is the same for both financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier provide a breakdown—and you may wish to take this on notice—of the divisions in which those FTEs are employed and their job titles?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am in a position to provide the opposition with a breakdown. The breakdown is as follows: if we start in the Legislative Council, there are 19 funded FTE positions; for the House of Assembly, 29; for the Library, 9.9; for Joint Services, 42.5; for Reporting, 25.3; and for Catering, 15.4.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The 2022-23 estimated result for Joint Parliamentary Services was $14,194,000. Was any of this money spent on quarantining the parliamentary courtyard from falling debris from the adjacent building; if so, what was the cost of this?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not to our knowledge, no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So the parliament has not spent any money on quarantining areas of the courtyard? It is all fenced off and you cannot get in, because there were reports of falling debris from the building. Parliament has not been involved in spending money to keep people safe there?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised there have not been any moneys allocated to remediate that area.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the parliament expended any funds to investigate reports of falling debris in the parliamentary courtyard; if so, how much has been spent and what were the findings?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised there has not been any expenditure from the parliament in respect of an inquiry of such type. In terms of the government more broadly—and I am saying this from memory—I understand there was a SafeWork investigation at one point, but that is obviously separate to the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is the Premier or the Clerk aware of whether funding has been obtained from the private developer of the building next door to assist keep that area safe?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is that there has not been any receipt of money from the builder to the parliament regarding that area, but that of course does not mean that the builder or the developer or anybody else associated with that project has not expended their own funds to protect the area. Again, this is from memory. I think there is a protective netting that has gone up but that is from them on what I understand to be their side of the development as distinct from in the courtyard itself.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Again on the same topic, has the Clerk or any members of the parliamentary staff been involved in negotiations with the developer of the building next door with regard to keeping the parliamentary courtyard safe?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does Parliamentary Services have an expected time line for when the parliamentary courtyard will reopen for members of parliament, staff and public to use?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the courtyard is closed at the moment for a precautionary measure in terms of occ health and safety. As it currently stands, there is not a specific time that the parliament has determined that will open. I do not know this definitively, but one would imagine that at some point during the course of construction the risk associated with the courtyard will extinguish and the courtyard will be opened as quickly as possible. In the meantime, hopefully it does not cause too much inconvenience.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has Parliamentary Services engaged any contractors or consultants to look at possible damage that has been caused to the parliament, to foundations and to infrastructure as a consequence of the extensive construction on the block next door?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Clerk is checking with David Woolman about this. I understand there was some work done prior to the construction, which was naturally provided by experts in the area, who were providing advice about the suitability of the construction of that building and any potential impact it had on the parliament. I understand that was undertaken prior to construction, not since.

The question I asked, which is along the lines of what the Leader of the Opposition asked, is: who funded that exercise? I am advised that work was done, including survey work that was done inside the parliament itself. I remember there were some testing stations there and the like, but that exercise, that study, was paid for by the developers or the builders as distinct from the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: To date, has there been any evidence that the construction next door has damaged parliament or anything within the parliamentary building or precinct?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has Joint Parliamentary Services been informed about whether the CFMEU is involved in construction of the adjacent building from which debris has been falling? If so, has Joint Parliamentary Services negotiated with the CFMEU with respect to falling debris in order to reopen the parliamentary courtyard?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I have allowed you quite a bit of latitude in terms of the questions you have asked. They have gone usually beyond the financial provisions. If you are to ask questions, can you please address them in terms of either the financial expenditure or impacts on the budget?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The falling debris—

The CHAIR: Let me finish. The question you have asked can be rephrased to comply with that. As it stands, I will rule it out of order. I am giving the opportunity for the leader to rephrase his question to comply with the requirement that it relate to the finances.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think that speaks for itself.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you are not to reflect on the ruling of the Chair.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The 2022-23 estimated result for Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services was $3,550,000. What items was this spent on?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that it is for super and payroll tax. In respect of the Leader of the Opposition's earlier line of inquiry and just for his benefit, I am advised there has not been any negotiation with the CFMEU, which is the union for the construction industry, who presumably have members working on that facility, as in the building next door.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In terms of the Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services and the figure of $3.55 million, that covers off on what that was spent on?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Chair, forgive me, but we are struggling to understand the question. The budget for 2022-23 is $3.55 million.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Are you asking about the variance of $259,000 between the 2022-23 and the 2023-24 budget?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, I am just seeking to know what the administered items are. You have the total figure for Joint Parliamentary Services being, in 2022-23, $13.157 million and administered items, $3.55 million. I am just keen to differentiate between Joint Parliamentary Services and then the administered items. I am trying to work out what would be covered off on administered items, what sort of services or activities.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised the answer is that that is for members' super and payroll tax and other on-costs.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is members of the parliamentary staff?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, that is members of parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the same budget line, the 2023-24 budget for Joint Parliamentary Services allocates almost $20 million—$19,947,000. That is nearly $6 million more than was spent in the current financial year. That is quite a significant increase. Can you explain why?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is one big change and then one smaller one. The big change is that there was a machinery of government change for PNSG to move from the Department of Treasury and Finance to parliament. The second one was an increased investment in the establishment of the People and Culture section. That expenditure is partly new money, $770,000.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So PNSG is a shift of around about $5 million or thereabouts, give or take? That is the value of PNSG?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Approximately, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: During the 2023-24 financial year, have Joint Parliamentary Services scheduled any specific upgrades to the parliamentary precinct that would be above normal maintenance?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not that I am aware of. I am advised nothing in particular, no. The Clerk is wanting to double-check something. I understand there have been some toilet upgrades, and apparently there has been an adjustment to a lift shaft near the Legislative Council. Apparently there is a hole that has been covered up and removed and you would not know it was there—a quaint secret of the Legislative Council.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just very briefly on my previous question about PNSG and People and Culture, could the Premier table a breakdown of those two figures, or read them in if he has them in front of him?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will see if we can get the specifics to be able to read them in. For PNSG, do you want the employee expenses breakdown or the total expenditure?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The total is fine.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The total for PNSG in 2022-23 was only $3.805 million, but that was only because it was for five months. In 2023-24 it will be a full operating year, and for the total cost of PNSG it was $7,216,000. That includes 24 FTEs. For People and Culture for 2023-24 it is $786,000.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the expenditure for Joint Parliamentary Services for 2023-24 include funding for new or additional security services at Parliament House?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The two houses collectively fund the provision of security through the PSSB. I am advised that the two houses do it as a fifty-fifty split for the cost of the security for the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is there any significant increase in funding beyond CPI or similar measure for the forthcoming financial year for security services or infrastructure?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not outside the realms of the additional cost of delivering the service in a new financial year. I understand that PSSB officers face the potential of a pay rise, and that will be reflected as an additional cost but not in terms of a new cost for a greater service.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the Joint Parliamentary Services budget be used to build a security fence around part of Parliament House, as covered in today's media and, if so, how much will this cost?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I understand that expenditure is being explored and they have not yet established a cost as being scoped up.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do we have a figure on what that might cost?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do we have a design that would indicate how high the fence would be?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There has been some design work and it is suggested to be 1.2 metres high.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: On top of the retaining wall?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is the expenditure for new security infrastructure at Parliament House, including obviously the fence on top of the wall, based on perceptions or evidence of increased crime and antisocial behaviour in the central business district?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I understand that periodically the parliament undertakes security reviews. The most recent of those reviews advised that, amongst other things around the parliament, that would be a worthwhile thing to do, and that is what informed the decision for the parliament to do that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Were there specific incidents uncovered in the review that led to the decision to build the fence, and what were they?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I understand it was a generic security review and there was not any specific incident that informed that decision.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the review be tabled?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not too sure. I would have to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: It cannot be tabled at estimates, no.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, well there you go.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the Premier make the review public?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is not my review.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the Clerk make the review public?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is a decision of the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is there a way to make the review public?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am just trying to work out in what budget paper the tabling of reviews is referred to?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The review would have been paid for from the budget of Joint Parliamentary Services.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: You will have to make those inquiries at the appropriate time in the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How much does the review cost?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is not a specific number. I understand it is a generic piece of work that is undertaken as a matter of due course in terms of the parliament's work.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was it undertaken by staff from Joint Parliamentary Services or by an external consultant?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I understand that police security is responsible for doing work with the parliament on the security measures in parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When was the decision made to construct the fence in terms of a date or approximate date?

The CHAIR: The questions you are asking, Leader of the Opposition, are best addressed to the Speaker or the President of the upper house. Those matters are under their guidance. Those questions should be directed to either the Speaker or the President.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The expenditure will come from Joint Parliamentary Services, Chair.

The CHAIR: I am happy for you to ask questions about the expenditure; actual operational matters go to those two officials.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: All these questions have resulted in the outcome, which is increased expenditure, so I would argue that my line of questioning is appropriate.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you are entitled to have your opinion; I just disagree with it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It might be unfortunate, as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, but there is a standard budget that exists within the parliament for the maintenance and security of the parliament. I am advised that there are always exercises being undertaken as a matter of course to work out what facilities need to be maintained and so forth. The example just provided to me by the officials was that if there is a wall to be painted then they look at that and think, 'Right, that wall is due to be painted.'

Similarly, there are reviews around the security of the building. As a matter of course, that happened. There were up to 20 different areas where they thought that expenditure could be undertaken to maintain the security of the parliament. There is not a specific allocation of additional expenditure towards security measures specifically for parliament, rather, just the standard budget that has always been in place, adjusted for inflation and what have you, around the maintenance of the building. I understand the security exercise is funded through that. So, no, there has been no decision of the government to dramatically increase expenditure in the parliament around the security measures. It is all rather par for the course.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Have staff within Joint Parliamentary Services, mainly the Clerks, received complaints from staff about their safety with regard to entering or exiting Parliament House?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the Clerk has not received any specific complaints to him.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or staff under his responsibility?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If staff had a complaint to make, presumably they would make it to the Clerk, but the Clerk has not received any.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Premier believe there has been an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the CBD and adjacent to the parliament warranting this additional expenditure?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, next question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Sorry? That was my question.

The CHAIR: I am saying it is the next question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You are ruling that one out.

The CHAIR: I am.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier might want to answer it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to answer any of the Leader of the Opposition's questions as always.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have just started off and give you the option, Premier—not that I am chairing this session.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, you are not—and that is the job of the Chair. I will abide by the rules, but the Leader of the Opposition has rules he has to abide by in terms of the committee's process as well.

The CHAIR: I just remind all members that the questions relate to the finances, and also they should be specific about asking for facts rather than just seeking some expression of opinion. Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think because these incidents have led to more expenditure from Joint Parliamentary Services the questions are warranted.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: But that was not the advice that was received. That would be a misrepresentation of what the evidence has been.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Some of that money is being spent on security—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which is always true.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —which would ensure that it was relevant, in my view. Anyway, we will move on. Given that additional resources are being spent by parliament to protect Parliament House and politicians in response to increases in crime and antisocial behaviour in the CBD—

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —what measures is the Premier taking to protect South Australians in the CBD?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, that question has argument. You can either rephrase it or move on to the next question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given that additional resources are being spent on Parliament House, is the Premier prioritising the safety and welfare of politicians over the safety and welfare of everyday South Australians?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What a load of complete nonsense! The attempted inference here from the Leader of the Opposition is weak at best. The first thing is that the parliament is expending its resources as it always does on the building itself. Naturally, if there are adjustments to be made to reflect inflation or CPI and what have you, that is standard operating procedure.

In terms of the government's efforts around antisocial behaviour on North Terrace, there are a suite of measures that the government is taking, many of which I have been personally invested in, and there is yet more work that the government is undertaking to address the challenges that are before us. As the Leader of the Opposition presumably appreciates, many of these issues are complex.

Additional policing resources have been deployed through Operation Paragon, which I think is a wholeheartedly good thing to do on behalf of police. I have naturally spoken personally to the police commissioner about this on more than one occasion, even during the course of his annual leave to which he is entitled. But there are also other measures that the government is actively turning its mind to beyond just policing measures in conjunction with the Department of Human Services.

But naturally I am happy to provide that information, and that will be explored throughout the course of estimates in the appropriate sections. I am not too sure how it fits within the parliament's budget. I think the only politicians who have been out on the record complaining about this are from the opposition, in fact, if my memory serves me correctly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given the expenditure on security and the fence to protect parts of Parliament House, does the Premier personally feel safe entering and exiting parliament after hours?

The CHAIR: The Premier is not required to answer that question.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I feel compelled to answer, Chair. I really appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's concern for my safety.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Always—always, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am sure it is based in complete sincerity.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: And compassion.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I would like to reassure the opposition that I feel perfectly comfortable entering and exiting parliament.

The CHAIR: There is unlikely to be a by-election in Croydon very soon.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am not sure the Liberal Party would field a candidate there, given the Premier's successful margin, but we do not need to discuss that.

The CHAIR: I think you should be more concerned about the eastern suburbs.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is wrong with the eastern suburbs? I want to return to my previous question around particular events that might have triggered the decision to build the fence at Parliament House.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As I explained before, the advice that I have received is that there were no specific events that led to that decision. It was just work undertaken as part of the general security review.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If there were no particular events, what would trigger the expenditure and why would there be a need to change the status quo?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The work that was undertaken by the security review and recommendations that were made out of that security review—no different to a recommendation to change whatever happened to the lift well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: A report provided to The Advertiser provided a quote:

Building services are investigating the possibility of installing a new security fence around the existing retaining wall to prevent vagrants consistently using the area as a toilet facility.

Did incidents of the area being used as a toilet facility trigger the decision to build the fence?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice that I received from the Clerk is that the review was undertaken somewhere around about six months ago or thereabouts. It is a six-month piece of work and this is one of the recommendations that came out of it, so it is not a knee-jerk response to—I think the Leader of the Opposition used the word 'vagrants' that have occurred more recently.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on to Budget Paper 3, page 12, table 1.5, I now require Joint Parliamentary Services staff for further questions.

The CHAIR: So you are moving to another section.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Sorry, yes, I should have indicated that.

The CHAIR: Are you moving to the State Governor's Establishment?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, I do not believe I have a question for that.

The CHAIR: So your first question will be for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the State Governor's Establishment complete. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the following proposed payments complete: Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services.