Department for Industry, Innovation and Science, $67,109,000

Administered Items for the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science, $10,891,000

Membership:

Ms Stinson substituted for Ms Thompson.

Mr Patterson substituted for Mr Cowdrey.

Mr Whetstone substituted for Mrs Hurn.

Hon. J.A.W. Gardner substituted for Mr Batty.

Minister:

Hon. S.E. Close, Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Reid, Chief Executive, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms P. Chau, Executive Director, Portfolio Delivery, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Mr A. Dunbar, Executive Director, Research and Innovation, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Mr C. Markwick, Executive Director, Industry and Workforce Capability, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms K. Hunt, Director, Higher and International Education, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms L. Newstead, Director, Strategic Policy and Migration, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Mr M. Smith, Director, Finance and Investment Services, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

The CHAIR: The portfolio under examination is the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science; Workforce Development and Employment; and Higher Education. The minister appearing is the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Minister, would you like to introduce your advisers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, thank you, Chair. As previously, I will not be giving an opening statement, but I will introduce the advisers with me. On my left is Adam Reid, who is the Chief Executive of the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science. On his left is Callan Markwick, Executive Director, Industry and Workforce Capability. On my right is Andrew Dunbar, Executive Director, Innovation and Science. Behind us, we have Phuong Chau, Executive Director, Portfolio Delivery; Louisa Newstead, Director, Strategic Policy; Karen Hunt, Director, Higher and International Education; and Martin Smith, Director, Finance and Investment Services.

The CHAIR: The lead spokesperson at this stage is the member for Morialta. You can start, yes, go ahead.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you. I would like to go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 165, where there is a highlight that identifies the department 'facilitated the government's commitment to evaluating the feasibility of creating a new university for the future', and so on. I have a series of questions relating to that highlight, if that is of assistance to the Chair.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I thought you might.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the minister read the business case that was prepared by the universities in relation to informing their decision to proceed with the merger?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are a number of items of documentation that I think could be referred to. There is a feasibility study, as I understand it—whether it is the business case, feasibility study, whatever the title is—that went to the two councils that contains all of the case and a significant amount of commercial-in-confidence material. I have not received that full document.

However, there was a significant amount of material that was part of what went to the councils that also included commercial-in-confidence material that was provided to the government in the context of preparing the questions about the funding package that was announced yesterday and was able to be assessed on its merits.

That material, because it still contains a high degree of commercial in-confidence material, cannot be released. The two universities have released a transition plan, which again contains some of the elements of those documents. The two vice-chancellors have committed to producing elements of what might be called a business case for why a merged institution or a new university formed of the other two would be of merit in a way that does not compromise their competitive positioning. They have committed to producing that in the near future for public consumption.

I understand very clearly why there are questions about what government has seen and what we have been able to digest in the ways in which we have been able to make decisions about what we would like to do next. They are legitimate questions. We have to keep in mind that these institutions operate in a highly competitive market not only in Australia, although significantly in Australia, but also globally. They have mapped out a plan to grow substantially and they have a pathway to that growth.

It is not in our collective interests for them to compromise the way in which they plan to do that in a way that might facilitate competitors taking advantage of the transition time. It is, however, legitimate that the people of South Australia understand that the government has been able to assess the merits of the argument, that a larger institution would be of merit for South Australia, and also some of the detail that sits behind the rationale for each of the elements of the funding package.

Although that is quite a long answer, I think it is necessary because it is very easy to distil, 'Have you seen a thing called a business case and, if you haven't, then how can you make this decision?' If you take each of those elements separately, I am satisfied that we have seen sufficient information, sufficiently of weight and justified, to justify proceeding with draft legislation for consideration by parliament—and, as I understand it, perhaps also an inquiry—and also to justify a package of support for the new university that has a relatively small amount of money that is simply expenditure now and a significant amount that is about facilitating what we believe to be strategically important to the future of the state.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I take from that that the information that was provided, whether it is called a business case or a feasibility study—for the sake of today, let's just call it a business case—to the university councils that contains information relevant to their decision that was not provided to government. Am I correct in taking that from your answer? Let me ask in a different way. I appreciate the minister says she has not been given the document that was given to the councils the other night. Has anyone in government been provided with that business case?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That document, I do not know how much it overlaps with the material that we have because I have not, by definition, seen it. It was a document that was provided to the councils because they have a fiduciary duty to make a decision about what is in the interests of their institution. So it is quite likely that it would have material that was shaped for the purpose of considering each individual university's future, and they may not have been the same document. We should probably take a little bit of time to get into this question of what universities are, what kind of entity they are because there is no analogy.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is getting quite philosophical, minister.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: But there is no analogy. They are not businesses and companies, nor are they government departments; they are universities with a very complex governance structure, which I think we probably should get into. The material that has been provided to government and is in the process in part of being made public for scrutiny, I think is sufficient to justify the steps that we are taking.

As I understand it, although I have been in estimates since 9 o'clock this morning, there is some discussion about ways in which an inquiry for parliament can be established so that the parliament is able to satisfy itself on that information before the next step is taken, which is the most significant step, which is whether or not we will create a new act; if we do not, there will be no new university. So there is still that time, that opportunity, to consider the merits and to make sure that members of parliament are equipped with the information that they require.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to that range of information from the universities to the department that the minister described as having informed the funding process, can the minister describe whether any analysis was undertaken by her department, or elsewhere within government, to form what might be considered a business case or a feasibility study from the point of view of taxpayers and the government?

To put it more clearly, the business cases the universities provided to their councils were to work out whether they considered it as being in their interests to proceed. The government's job is to work out whether it is in the interests of South Australia to proceed. It is a different question. Is there a government feasibility study other than the Labor Party's election promise for a university commission that informs whether or not this is a good deal for South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Exactly, and I think you have made the point I was seeking to make earlier, that the documents may be different in the sense that a slightly different question is being asked. The information we have enables us to be confident that the modelling the universities have discussed, that was released yesterday to the public, of the economic impact of the new institution by the mid-2030s is a reasonable expectation. That modelling tells us that South Australia will benefit from this new institution—substantially.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: You talked about a range of information that has been provided to government by the unis, but they have not provided a business case. What is the nature of the information the universities have provided to government over and above the 19-page transition plan the universities released yesterday and the other material that is in the public domain already?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So—

The CHAIR: Minister, can you hold on for a second. Member for Morialta, I want to give you as much latitude as I can, but I just remind members that they have to have a financial aspect to their questions.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, there is a direct budget line—

The CHAIR: Let me finish; don't interrupt. I didn't interrupt you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: You interrupted the minister, sir.

The CHAIR: I didn't interrupt you, though. I just ask that your questions will at least try to have a financial component. If you want to ask questions just generally about the whole proposal we have question time for that; that is what question time is for. This is a specific opportunity to ask questions that have budgetary implications.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, the budget papers are detailed; there is a highlight that directly and specifically goes to this point: 'facilitated the government's commitment to evaluating the feasibility', and we are talking about the investment of $440 million that has been identified as being within the budget. I think the question is entirely within order and I encourage—

The CHAIR: Member for Morialta, I actually determine whether questions are in order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes; and I ask you to allow it, sir.

The CHAIR: I suggest you rephrase it to make it look a bit more financial.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In order to justify the $440 million expenditure the government has provided, what analysis has been provided to that information and what is the nature of that information that has been provided to the government by the universities?

The CHAIR: You can do it when you try, member for Morialta.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I feel I have substantially answered that question. Obviously the $440 million does not sit in my budget line; nonetheless, I am happy to answer on behalf of the government about the assessment of the merits of this contemplation of a new university. As more information is able to be made public, ensuring that we are not compromising the competitive circumstances for the two universities, it will become clearer what sat behind the financial analysis that occurred and also the modelling that justifies the benefits for South Australia of the new institution.

I would like to add that for people who understand how universities work in Australia it is clear that larger universities are greater economic contributors. The fact that we have not had a large university in this state has been talked about for decades. This is not an idea that suddenly came out of nowhere six months ago, nor yesterday. This is an idea that has been interrogated and interrogated. In fact, there was a process that was started during the term of the previous government, although I am not sure what involvement the previous government had in those contemplations.

With the understanding that mass scale makes a difference, particularly in research, which provides the economic weight for the institution, and when we are talking about a high Group of Eight institution—and this new institution has already been invited to be part of the Group of Eight—then there is also the capability and the capacity for additional international students who will want to be part of a Group of Eight institution. Without going over the percentage that already is the international student representation for the University of Adelaide, it is clear that there are economic benefits.

The structuring of the package that was announced yesterday is one that in many ways could be described as 'no regrets'. So what is it doing? It is buying land, which is then an asset that is held by the government and can be used strategically. I think that is particularly important with the Magill campus because the University of South Australia, even without a merger, has been clear that it will be exiting that campus. Do we want that land to simply be bought by whoever wants to put their hand up in the market, or do we want it to be treated as a strategic asset by the state? I would rather the latter: it becomes a piece of land that has a value on our books.

Again, if we look at the $30 million that is being put into international student attraction, at times—indeed, immediately before COVID—international students are our biggest export in South Australia. I suspect we are the only state where that is true. They are immensely important to us and of huge economic benefit, as well as the cultural interactions. The fact that we will be able to have more international students and we are putting some money into attracting them, again, can only be a good thing. There is $6 million sitting in the actual budget lines that we are discussing this afternoon for StudyAdelaide to attract more international students across the board. This is something that we should do as a government. Other states are doing it, and we need to maintain our place.

Then we are talking about two funds that sit on government books that are going to be directed towards more research aligning with our strategic priorities and a broader diversity of students going to university. As a former education minister, you will well know that South Australia is undereducated, on average. Proportionally, we have fewer people with bachelor degrees than most of the other states. This is unsurprising, given our history and our relative poverty levels, but unacceptable for a sustainable future. How is there a regret in setting aside money to assist with that?

Given the way in which the funding has been structured, on the basis of understanding the economic benefits of a large institution and particularly the way in which this one will be structured, I think a 'no regrets' effort for supporting that is completely justifiable. If we are going to have an inquiry with members of parliament sitting on it, you will be able to see far more detail, and it is in parliament's hands whether we proceed with this or not.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to a couple of things that came directly from the minister's answer, what is the government planning on doing with the land at Magill? Will the community childcare centre, sports field, swimming pool and obviously the heritage building, in particular, be protected?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is a very legitimate question. The plan in the short term is to do master planning for the land on the other side of the road, so not the main Magill campus. That will be undertaken presumably by Renewal SA, who had input into the assessment of the merits of purchasing the land, so they will undertake that process. Then for I believe up to 10 years the university will remain on the campus side, giving lots of time to consider what will happen in the future, so we are able to think about this strategically in two parcels. The master planning will happen with the local community, there is no question, and heritage will be respected.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to campuses other than Magill held by the two universities, has the minister received any advice as to whether any of those campuses will be closed or indeed retained as a result of the merger?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Mawson Lakes forms part of the agreement as well, so there is a purchase of rights to use the land that is not campus used at the moment. There are no immediate plans to do anything else with that. There will be at some point in the future a master plan in process that again would involve discussion with current users, but there are absolutely no plans to move forward with that at this stage. The university has committed to remaining with a university presence at Mawson Lakes, which I think is very important; indeed, the leadership of both universities have said that they wish to be more involved in the north of Adelaide as part of this effort to have a broader range of people studying at university.

There has been no indication to me that there would be any retreat from any other campus and, given that the plan is for greater accessibility and for growth, I would be surprised—other than that a logistical strategic repositioning might occur sometime in the future—that there would be no plan in the short term for altering campus composition.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Directly on the budget line, whether it is the evaluation of the feasibility or indeed the minister's own discussions, is the minister able to advise us what the impacts will be on regional South Australia—whether existing campuses are guaranteed to stay open, including service delivery, current places and the emerging number of uni hubs that have started to become a feature?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think I started to get to that at the end of my last answer. The universities have indicated no interest in exiting and no plans to exit any other campuses. They have also been very clear that they are wanting to create a new university that will grow and grow in a way that attracts students currently not going to university. Some of those students are living in Adelaide, they are socially disadvantaged and they may come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds—but many of the students will also be living regionally.

Into the future, will that always be done through a physical campus in a physical town? Who knows what the future of education will look like? The plan is that there will be more teaching not less, and there is no specific plan to remove any campuses that I am aware of, other than exiting the Magill site in the next 10 years.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Again on the same budget line, the government has identified the $440 million in various aspects of investment. As part of the minister's discussions to unlock that $440 million, how much have the universities committed from their resources towards the transition and implementation of the proposal?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice because I am uncertain about the extent of commercial confidentiality with that information.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will ask the straight question. Am I correct to take it from that that, whether or not we are able to identify that figure, a figure has been arrived at from the universities and confirmed with the government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are extensive costs associated with making a transition.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If the universities are making a commitment of their own, can the minister rule out state government funds being used to pay for redundancies of anyone losing their jobs as a result of the merger? I appreciate there has been a commitment of no forced redundancies for people who have contracts up until the middle of 2027, but beyond that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For two reasons: one is that I have described the support that we will be giving and none of that in any way is associated with giving the university money. Sure, we will work out how we best spend the $30 million on the international student recruitment, and it may well be via the new university. But this is not about simply handing over cash and wondering how that will be spent.

The real answer, though, is one that was referred to, and that is that there has been a commitment to no forced redundancies. When the two vice-chancellors were asked about that in their press conference yesterday, as I have previously discussed with them as well—it is interesting to hear your own questions then asked by journalists—the commitment to the four years is in order to assure people that the transition will not be about making redundancies.

The plan for the university beyond that is for growth. There is an anticipated significant increase in staffing that will be required, but it is reasonable for the new institution not to have a mechanism under enterprise agreement that every other university has. It is simply returning to normal, but it is not something that is in any way being contemplated as, 'We will just save up positions for four years' time.' That is very clearly not the plan of the councils nor of the vice-chancellors.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the minister or the government secured a commitment from the universities to transfer a particular number of casual staff to permanent contracts? If not, has the government secured any commitment in relation to the ongoing employment and future of those casual staff who, I understand, may be as much as a fifth of the workforce?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is no commitment that exists that is not publicly known, so we do not have that as a commitment from the universities, but having grown up around universities and worked at one, I am horrified at the extent of casualisation across all Australian universities. It is one of the implications of the way in which higher education has been treated in this country for some considerable time.

It is one of the features that I raised with Professor Mary O'Kane, who is undertaking the accord process, that seems to me for professional staff as well—but I would say particularly for research and teaching academic staff—to be casualised in the early years of your academic career must be a huge disincentive to speaking up, to contributing and to thinking that this is your career and not be attracted elsewhere into industry. I am open for discussions about ways in which all of our universities can do better on that. I would hope that a stronger, wealthier Group of Eight institution would be more capable of employing people under better conditions.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will add an extra budget line to assist us, although the other one still applies, but on the previous page, page 163, there is a line that talks about industry, innovation and science having a cost of services. Part of that I think includes the unit within the minister's department that focuses on higher education policy, from memory in the order of $1 million or thereabouts in its budget from last year's estimates.

Does that unit or has the minister's department more broadly received advice from the university or other sources about how many of their staff are casuals and, indeed, whether there is a vulnerability for those staff losing their jobs in this process, given that I assume they are not relevant for the no forced redundancy policy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take on notice whether we have been supplied with that information rather than starting to swap advisers around, but I would be surprised if either of the institutions are significantly different from the average Australian experience. There is no reason particularly why they would be.

I come back again to this creation of a new university from two existing ones having not come out of the ether on a whim. It is a response to the way in which higher education exists and is funded and is guided in policy terms in this country, one future of which is that research input is significantly dependent on international student income, which I do not believe any other advanced country chooses to do, and also the way in which funding works has encouraged the heavy use of casualised workers, particularly for teaching.

The most recent round of reform under the previous commonwealth government was a disgrace. It punished students for their choices by fiddling around with what the HECS fee was so that there was a disincentive to study things like social sciences and humanities, yet at the same time it also punished universities by requiring an additional I think it was 100,000 students to be taught with no additional money. While a student was being encouraged to study a STEM topic by dropping the HECS, the federal government did not replace the funding that they were losing from the student paying less so that it became a disincentive to teach a STEM course.

It was a completely absurd situation and just one example of why this is a rational response to try to get greater mass to do better teaching and better research that can only be better for the employment circumstances of the people there. I think federal governments should take some responsibility for the way in which they have treated higher education, for why universities are forced to go through what will be a very complex and time-consuming process. As I say, this did not come out of the ether. It is a rational response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If I can ask just one direct follow-up, the minister's response talks about the ideal of where the university is proposed to get to. I guess my question is specifically in relation to the transition time, where staff at the moment are concerned about losing the jobs that they have now, rather than what jobs might be available in eight years' time. I appreciate the minister took some aspects of that question on notice. Can I just clarify, are you able to provide a response to that fear, that concern that exists now, or do you want to just provide that in your question on notice?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is true that when you are a casualised worker you do not have the same protections, and no forced redundancies in general—would not apply to you. Whether there is any different view that has been taken by the universities, I will take that on notice, but if you pair it with the existing commitment that predates this one, which is that there would be no net job loss, then what you are talking about is not shedding staff, and that ought to give great comfort also to those who are not on secure contracts.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you for your forbearance, Chair. I will go back to the same budget line. In relation to either the work that the unit has done with the universities or that the minister has done through her engagements, do we have an understanding of what departments and courses are proposed to be merged or discontinued under the plan and what new departments or courses are proposed to be established?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think there we are starting to get to the heart of at least part of the concerns about the universities not having too much of their growth plan released in public because they can see where they are going to position themselves against their competitors. That said, the transition plan does countenance extensive discussions now with the university communities about the ways in which teaching will change.

For example, I understand they are going to move to a trimester model in order to facilitate getting through your degree more quickly. That is just an example. The way in which they will adapt to a new curriculum—it is also a commitment that they are going to be providing a new curriculum—I think will become clear as we go through this transition plan. People will have plenty of time and opportunity to speak to it.

State governments and state parliaments have an enormous stake in universities doing well, both at the research and commercialisation level and at the teaching level. They do not ultimately control many of the levers that are associated with what students will choose to do, which is often associated with HECS and with the capping of places, and so on. That is all held by the commonwealth, which is part of why unis are so complex in their governance arrangements. I think we ought to participate in discussing that but not see it as something that is directly within our control.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the unit provided any advice or had any discussions with Flinders University, in particular, given that the stated aims of the two funds for research and low SES are both things that are of interest to Flinders University as well? Is there an avenue for funds to be applied to Flinders' benefit, as well as to the new university, as a result of the establishment of these funds, which the minister has described as 'no regrets'?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes. I hesitate to add this because we love all our children the same and we do not play favourites, but I am a creature of Flinders University. I am Australian because Flinders existed and my parents came here to staff it and I studied there and worked there briefly. It is an institution that is very dear to my heart.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am sure they have high hopes.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think my greater point is that we are responsible for the sector, not for an individual university. The announcement yesterday was entirely about what is occurring to facilitate the creation of a new university that we believe will be transformational for the state. Our commitment to having a healthy sector remains. I have had discussions with Flinders, and the unit has had discussions with Flinders, in the lead-up to the announcement, and the Premier has had conversations, on this side of the announcement, with the vice-chancellor to assure him that we will remain in discussions about ensuring that Flinders remains competitive and strong.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the government commenced drafting legislation for the merger and, if so, has it shared drafts with the universities at this stage?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There has been discussion back and forth between the universities and us on what draft legislation would look like. I am not sure if we discussed it back when the statement of cooperation was signed at the end of last year, but there was a view even then that the base of the new act ought to be the University of South Australia Act because it is the most modern, being only 32 years old, and also because it is more explicitly responsive to equity. So we have taken that as the base and have had discussions with the universities.

That said, the legislation ultimately, as we have said, is the creature of parliament, but we will be going to public consultation as well as stakeholder consultation. The version that is in protean form right now will evolve during that period. I am not certain where we are landing on the idea of a committee to inquire into it, but presumably it will be the subject of that committee as well and then will be subject to the decisions made by us in here.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I was going to ask simply when the legislation will be introduced to the parliament, but perhaps the minister can identify what the other aspects of the time frame are as well.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will go out to consultation fairly quickly because we have a draft basis. I would like to bring it into parliament as soon as we get back after the break. What I do not know—there may have been discussions across the chamber while I have been in this endless cycle of estimates (did I mention?) since 9 o'clock this morning—is whether there have been some multiparty discussions about ways in which we might manage this, at what time that ought to happen and at what point, but it will be publicly available very soon for members of parliament to have a look at because we are going to do public consultation.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I have maybe one more question on this line. I know you are concerned about being conversational, but it might make things quicker if I can explain the question with context in the lead-up.

The CHAIR: Go ahead.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My understanding, minister, is that there is one sitting day left until the winter break in the Legislative Council and that it is parties in the Legislative Council, including the opposition and, as of this morning, I think with the Premier's endorsement, that are likely to have an inquiry established. Presumably, if notice is given this Thursday, the first day available for that inquiry to be formalised is the first Wednesday when we are back. Will the minister give a commitment that the legislation, or at least the draft legislation, can be publicly released prior to that resumption of the parliamentary sittings?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will be consulting during the break with the public, so you will see the legislation very quickly. It will be out in August for public consultation. You are right about the question of timing for a committee. As I said, I have not been part of any discussions, but I am sure that the timing will be worked out.

I would just say on the committee that it is legitimate that people need to understand the case for this and then also to say what they would want to see in the act. What would be of concern to me is if we allow this to go on for too long because the countervailing challenge for the two universities that exist right now that are likely to form the new one is that they need to be able to continue to enrol students, to advertise and to get staff, so we need to minimise uncertainty while still allowing proper inquiry.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: This will be my last question on this run. The 19-page transition plan that I think the universities released at the government's press conference yesterday—that looks like it—contains on about the fourth or fifth page a chart about what is going to happen in different stages, and it talks about the legislative expectations and that the parliament is to pass legislation in quarter 1 of 2024.

My assessment therefore is that the legislation, to their end, needs to be passed by March 2024 to enable them to get TEQSA accreditation, advertise for international students and everything else. I invite the minister to ensure that the parliamentary committee is able to fulfil its responsibility to report in a timely fashion, allowing time for the parliamentary debate after that. Is the minister committing that her department and the government will cooperate fully with that inquiry?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: First of all, it is difficult for me to commit in great detail, having not been part of any discussions that I am sure have been occurring today, but of course, if there is a parliamentary inquiry, we will participate and provide the information that is required. There is no question that we would obey the conventions.

On this date, I had hoped ideally that we could get it through before the end of the year. That is very ambitious. I always worry about letting things slip into the very drop-dead time for, in this case, the accreditation of the new university, as you point out. I still want to do everything I can to make this as speedy as possible without running over legitimate process. You are right to acknowledge that the universities themselves have identified that. I think that they do not deal with parliament all that often, so they are probably a bit more optimistic about our nature.

Mr WHETSTONE: On the workforce summary, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 163, of the 8.9 FTEs transferred into DIIS from DTI in July 2022 how many were dedicated specifically to International Education?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The transfers were a combination of the Industry Capability Network and International Education. The Industry Capability Network is where the people coordinate smaller companies being able to bid for and have connections with larger companies. You have a mining industry capability network and various smaller supply chain companies are able to work out what is happening in mining so that they can bid. There is a number of those networks.

Mr WHETSTONE: How many FTEs are currently specifically dedicated to international education?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As often happens when you move something from one department into another, you then do it in a slightly different way. The resources on international education have been put in with higher education, so we have a team on higher and international education but we also have some support in the comms team for international education. They have been blended in more, rather than just existing as a separate little group.

Mr WHETSTONE: Do you envisage efficiencies or improvements in facilitating international education opportunities?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our main approach is to have the strong relationship with StudyAdelaide, which came over as well to be mine rather than a different minister's, and we have put $6 million of additional funding, which I mentioned in passing earlier, to be able to do more work for international education for student recruitment. That is the way in which we are largely anticipating being able to participate more, plus of course, in the event that the university is created by the parliament, there is the additional funding directly for ensuring that international students know about the new university.

Mr WHETSTONE: In the previous budgets, the activity indicators have measured South Australia's share of international student enrolments in Australia. Why is the activity indicator no longer measured in the budget?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What has occurred with that indicator, because it was never in the base agency's indicators, is that it did not translate over. The way in which we report on international student education is through StudyAdelaide, and they are very adept at producing the figures for the extensive international education. I am not sure if I have a brief I can grab quickly now, but the results have been very pleasing in the return to the number of students coming back proportionally in South Australia post COVID.

Part of the rationale for the additional $6 million to StudyAdelaide was that we are concerned that the twin issues of coming back after COVID—and, I have to say, international students not being well treated by the federal government in that period, but they were by the state government and the universities—and the challenges with the China market mean that we need to make sure that we are pushing into the other countries that are likely to send students here. We want to make sure that we are putting in that effort.

To refine what I said earlier, early on we were seeing that our enrolment growth rate was ahead of the national average. That has slipped recently, so we are a bit behind the national average. That again is one of the reasons we determined that we needed to put in additional funding, because other states have been quite aggressive in trying to build up their market and we need to make sure we are doing what we can.

Mr WHETSTONE: What is the current status of South Australia's international student enrolments or the current enrolment number?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For the full calendar year 2022, South Australia had 43,535 international student enrolments.

Mr WHETSTONE: South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr PATTERSON: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 166, targets, around critical technologies and cyber in particular, can the minister advise the number of people who attended training courses at the A3C in 2022-23 and how does it compare with previous years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In the interests of time, we have a brief that is generally about the organisation but not the specific question of how many students have enrolled, so we will take that on notice and get it to you.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you, and you may want to do the same with a few of the other questions. How many events have been hosted by the A3C and how many people have attended those events?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice.

Mr PATTERSON: How many staff resource the A3C, including how many are also members of the A3C?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To revise my earlier answer, as of 19 June it had hosted 253 events, 131 training programs and secured 88 members and 11 partners.

Mr PATTERSON: Do you have information about how it compares to previous years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Although, curiously, another part of my brief says that it has over 91 members. That might be combining the 88 and the 11, though, so I will clarify that.

Mr PATTERSON: This is a crossover with your other roles, but I think it does apply here. You have had the recent Defence Strategic Review that was released, and it talked about one of the critical requirements being around robust cybersecurity for all businesses to make Australia resilient. What plans does the minister have to work with the A3C to increase cybersecurity and resilience in South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As an example, and it strictly sits in the small business portfolio but I am happy to tell you about it, just last week there was an announcement for a cyber resilience program for small business that will be delivered by the A3C but is designed for small business, which is particularly challenged by the idea of managing cybersecurity, so I think it will be incredibly useful. It is an absolute treasure that centre; I am sure you know it well. It does extraordinary work.

Mr PATTERSON: Also, last year we spoke a little bit about some of the opportunities from the REDSPICE program. Can the minister give an update on what she is doing to maximise the opportunities for South Australia from this program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The commonwealth Australian Signals Directorate is increasing its staffing, with workforce growth of nearly 2,000 over the next 10 years under REDSPICE—which stands for Resilience, Effects, Defence, SPace, Intelligence, Cyber and Enablers, as you probably already knew, member for Morphett—which will support a large-scale expansion of Australia's offensive and defensive cybersecurity capabilities.

REDSPICE is a near $10 billion investment in ASD, and the additional 1,900 new staff will provide an expanded operational footprint of the ASD outside Canberra and into major locations, and the A3C is engaging with them.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I would like to go to page 167 of Volume 3. I think, sir, you will be very pleased that I have a question about the explanation of significant movement. In particular, I am going to be asking about the higher expenditure due to the department's responsibility for higher education, including delivery of the government's teaching profession scholarships election commitment, as listed in about the middle of page 167.

Was the funding specifically for those scholarships provided from within existing departmental resources, or was that a budgeted deficit, or was something cut to pay for it, or was this new money to the budget?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was new money to the budget.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Excellent, and presumably provided after last year's budget papers, explaining why it is a significant movement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right. I think it is because it was assigned to a different agency first and then it tracked its way back to us, and that is why it looks like a movement.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to that promise to provide scholarships, you may recall last year I asked some questions and you were not sure on the answers then, but I understand on 21 March there has been a press release confirming that 100 of the $5,000 scholarships will be rolled out each year—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —in the four categories as advertised. I might ask some questions about them. How many scholarships will there be in each of the categories: high ATAR school leavers, men to study primary teaching, Aboriginal scholarships and women to teach STEM? Is it 25 each, or is it a specific target within each category?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I recall now, it was initially given to education and then came over to us, which is why there was that movement. The agreement with the universities is not a specific number in each category but no one category can have more than 50 per cent of the scholarships in that year. That enables some flexibility in making sure that universities are able to select students they consider to be of the right calibre and the right commitment, but it also means that they are required to offer across the scholarships and not just, say, give them all to the high ATAR students or to an Aboriginal cohort.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Do I gather from that that there is a specific number assigned to each university?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, there is.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If so, what is that number for each uni?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are 30 scholarships per year for the University of Adelaide and 35 each for the University of South Australia and for Flinders.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Will Aboriginal students be eligible to receive this new scholarship on top of the pre-existing Amy Levy scholarship?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, there is no restriction on scholarship accumulation.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the scholarship a lump sum, or is it $1,250 per year or some other mechanism? How is it to be delivered?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It has been done as a lump sum because it is really a recognition of the costs in starting a degree, so that is what has been determined.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: When will the first scholarships be awarded?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a bit of diversity here. Flinders has not offered for first semester but is offering for second semester.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: This year or next year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This year. The University of Adelaide has not provided an update as yet. They are required to, and they will, but I imagine they have been a little busy. The University of South Australia has awarded 29 of their 35 scholarships already. More will be happening in the second semester if they have more applicants for First Nations women in STEM or men in primary school teaching streams.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The press release from the government was on 21 March. If you are saying UniSA has already awarded those scholarships, did UniSA have an application process before they awarded those scholarships, or did they identify pre-existing students who met the qualifications and were able to provide them with the $5,000 grants each?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At the University of South Australia they did indeed give to the students who had already enrolled, most of whom had applied for other scholarships, so they were able to add to the numbers that they could say yes to.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If UniSA has given scholarships at the beginning of this year, and Flinders the second semester this year, and Adelaide presumably at some stage this year, we are talking about four-year teaching degrees for all of them, so these students are not going to finish their work until 2027. Given the government has provided it as a one-off grant at the beginning of their studies, what process does the government propose to undertake to assess the effectiveness or the merit of this program going forward? I am particularly thinking about students who do not make it the distance of the four years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As just a bit more refinement, the universities are required to report each year and will not receive the next year's allocation until they have reported, so I am sure that the University of Adelaide will be sorting itself out very soon. It probably has given scholarships, it is just that we do not actually have the report to give you right now, but I am sure that that will be resolved very easily.

If they do not allocate some, they are able to keep that for the following round so that they are not just giving out scholarships if they do not feel that they have had enough quality applicants. But we are otherwise being reasonably understanding that students' lives are complicated and that in some cases the students will not finish, and we have attempted to assist them in the commencement.

Universities are very adept at managing scholarship programs and understanding about ways in which they connect with students and support those they believe are the ones who are likely to be successful, but we have a reasonably light touch from that perspective.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My last question is: in relation to this, given that the next round presumably applies for students starting their studies in the 2024 year, will the government be expecting that the universities have an open call for applications for these scholarships going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, and in fact I should have added with the University of South Australia that, even though they used mostly students who had already applied for other scholarships, they also did an open call, and we would expect that that will occur.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Later this year, presumably.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science complete. An examination of the proposed payments is adjourned until tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 15:46 to 16:00.