Estimates Vote

State Governor's Establishment, $4,748,000

Audit Office of South Australia, $20,037,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $508,394,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $27,324,000

Minister:

Hon. P.B. Malinauskas, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms N. Chandler, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr W. Hunter, Chief Operating Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms C. Hodgetts, Director of Finance and Procurement, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr R. Morris, Chief Executive, Premier's Delivery Unit, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr D. Romeo, Executive Director, Premier's Delivery Unit, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Ms J. Blanche, Chief Operating Officer, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr S. Whetton, Chief Executive, South Australian Productivity Commission.

Mr J. Conway, Chief Executive, Infrastructure SA.

Ms A. Pollice, Manager, Governance and Business, Infrastructure SA.

Ms D. Dixon, State Project Lead, Lot Fourteen.

Mr M. Warren, Chief Executive, SA Motor Sport Board.

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee A. I respectfully acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of this country throughout Australia and their connection to land and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to elders both 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 Leader of the Opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Premier and Leader of the Opposition please confirm that they have agreed to the procedures for today?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: 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 5 September 2025.

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 to do so. 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 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. The Premier 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, that 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's website.

I now proceed to open the following lines for examination: State Governor's Establishment, Auditor-General's Department, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Productivity Commission and Infrastructure SA. 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 wishes to do so and to introduce his advisers, then I will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to make a statement as well.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The practice that we have adopted has been to not make an opening statement so as to facilitate more questions from the opposition, which is an opportunity that I certainly appreciated when I was in that office. I will take the chance very quickly to thank all the officials across the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and associated agencies for the preparations for today. It is an enormous amount of work and I am very grateful for it.

Can I introduce the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Rick Persse; also the Deputy CEO of the department, Nari Chandler to my left; and then to my right is Wayne Hunter, who is the Chief Operating Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. We look forward to, as best we can, affording as much information to the house throughout the course of today's proceedings.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to mention the people behind you?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As they come forward I will do that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There is no opening statement from me. I am happy to get into questions, if it is the will of yourself and the committee.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is fine.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Wonderful. Good morning, Premier, good morning team. We might kick off with Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, the 2024-25 budget and estimated figures. The 2024-25 estimated result for the program is $163.866 million which is far above the original 2024-25 budget of $115.927 million. Why was there an overspend of almost $50 million there?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is there are a range of things that inform that variance, many of which are associated with various machinery of government changes and some of which are additional expenditure. For instance, there is an additional allocation of $10.051 million to the reprofiling of the Business Events Bid Fund, which, the Leader of the Opposition might be familiar with, sits there and is only ever called upon in the event that Adelaide Venue Management makes a successful application for a major conference or a bid. That accounts for a very significant proportion of it.

Then there are a range of other programs and machinery of government changes that have informed that variance. For instance, there is $4.75 million for an agreement with Adelaide Uni regarding tenancy at Lot Fourteen, $3.3 million in variation to corporate overhead allocations across a range of programs, and an $896,000 transfer from the Arts Investment Fund to the SA Museum's review that we conducted, and so forth. So there is a range of things that make that up.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How is the department allowed to overspend its budget effectively by, say, 40 per cent?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that it is not an overspend. Rather, we see a transfer of activities between various agencies and other departments that in turn changes the budget profiling. So it is not as though there is necessarily a specific budget line or allocation that is made within the budget that is then in turn overspend, but if it is a function between agencies or there is a machinery of government change, then it in turn means DPC spends more than what another department may spend.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, expenses versus actual. The Premier and Cabinet policy and support programs expenses are budgeted at $203.194 million in 2025-26, yet—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I just want to make sure I am following you here. You are talking about?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Total expenses.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You see that figure of $203.194 million?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: So the expenses are budgeted at $203.194 million for 2025-26, yet actual expenditure in 2023-24 was only $146.631 million. Why has that expenditure increased by almost 40 per cent for what looks like the same program next year? It is quite a big jump.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The answer is largely the same as my previous explanation. To give maybe even more context again, the advice that I am receiving is that where you see reprofiling of expenses from one year to the next, which has occurred in this instance—whether it be the Business Events Fund or the Major Events Fund—if something is not expended in one year and is reprofiled to another, then that accounts for a significant proportion of the discrepancy, which is what you see in this instance.

For instance, one of the most substantial expenses in any government department, or in almost all government departments, is obviously the number of people who are employed. On the bottom line, you do not see a proportionate increase in the number of employees. The expense is partly driven by a number of people, but it is not exclusively that. What it is driven by is the level of activity being reprofiled from one year to the next. That is the advice that I am receiving.

Maybe if I give some more examples for the benefit of the leader, in 2025-26, there are other things that we have accounted for that constitute new activity. We have part of the COP effort—when I say 'part', the majority of the COP effort, up until this point, is being led by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and that accounts for $2½ million, another specifically $2 million exclusively for winter business events is accounted for here, the centralisation of activities around government advertising and insights being transferred from other departments to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to achieve an efficiency outcome reflects partly in there, disaster recovery funding arrangements and the Voice to Parliament budget measure. All of these things add up to formulate parts of that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Since you mentioned COP, I might just go to that. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, in relation to COP, and you could also look at Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 8, since there was expenditure mentioned about—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, Budget Paper 5, page—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Page 8, across government, conference of the parties. It is a supplementary to that. Is the Premier able to please outline what attributed to the $1.070 million estimated spend in 2024-25?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes. The leader will appreciate that I am just getting some of that detail to provide a bit of clarity. Going right back to 2023 is when the state government first started working behind the scenes to inquire about the opportunity to be able to pursue COP, which of course has been a bipartisan position—or at least to the best of my knowledge it was a bipartisan position—to pursue COP. There are a range of different challenges that we had to be able to be considered in a serious way for hosting COP31.

It is fair to say that there was a degree of scepticism in the Canberra bureaucracy that Adelaide had the capability to be able to host an event of this size and scale. We formulated a team back in 2023 in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to actually seek to put some of that cynicism and scepticism to one side by a presentation comprehensively of the facts around our ability to be able to do this, and from that moment essentially started to incur expense.

This was not released publicly at the time, but what we have certainly put on the public record since, is this bid here, which is a comprehensive sort of presentation in excruciating detail, of all of the things that would underpin our ability to do this logistically. It is actually pretty complicated. You have to think about it in the context of one of the biggest events outside of the Olympics: public transport, security, traffic movements, venues, health planning, disaster planning, and then, obviously, more basic things just like rooms—where people are going to sleep—and everything else.

We engaged KPMG at some expense, it is fair to say, to the government, to be able to independently produce a piece of advice as well. And then all of that formulated in effect a bid that we made to Canberra to be able to do that. Along that journey there has been an expense incurred in order to be able to prepare that. It is no different to preparations of any tender document or any other bid, and that is what you start to see reflected in the costs. Of course, the Treasurer, given the Prime Minister's announcement during the course of the election campaign, has allocated yet more funds, the bulk of which are being transferred to SAPOL. When I say the bulk, a significant portion of it is going to SAPOL for their security planning work, which is very substantial indeed.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Just speaking to that, it mentions on the same page that the initiative provides $8.3 million over two years from 2024-25 to support South Australia's preparation for Adelaide to host COP31 in November 2026, should the commonwealth government be successful in its bid. Just a supplementary there: how will we recoup the money if we are not successful in the bid? How does that work? Do we do our dough or what do we get back?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think the short answer is that when you bid for something and you do not get it you lose, and therein lies the challenge. There will be some costs that may be recoverable in conjunction with the commonwealth, but the reality is that, if you want to put your hand up—I mean, it is no different to Gather Round. We had to make a bid there and that would have cost money putting that bid together.

I guess there are two ways of approaching that challenge when you are in a position of responsibility. You can either sit back and say, 'Look, we're not going to try in case we fail.' That is not what I teach my kids. I teach that you should always put your hand up and have a go. That is the way you get ahead, you have got to have a go. That brings with it risk and I accept that. You have to make calculated risks and considered judgments, and that is what we have done in this instance.

We started from a position where, quite literally, I was party to a conversation in Canberra where the idea of Adelaide hosting this was scoffed at. I remember exactly who I was talking to, where and when, and it was scoffed at, because every time this country has ever hosted any event remotely close to the scale that this one is, it has been in Sydney or Melbourne. I do not accept that should be the default position, so we had a lot of work to do, and that means you wear expense along that journey.

We are now in a position that we know definitively, if Australia does win this bid, it is going to be in this city. We have not yet won it because Australia is not yet the host but, in the event it is, we are already ahead of the pack, which I think is more than a demonstration that this investment was justified and meritorious.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Out of that money, how much is a sunk cost that is unrefundable in the event that we are not successful?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is a budget allocation. You will appreciate that it is a budget allocation and expenses are incurred iteratively as the process continues. If, for instance, we found out tomorrow that Australia's major competitor to host COP, which we understand to be Turkey—if indeed Turkey was awarded the hosting rights, which is a possibility, then of course not all that money would have been expended and, for the money that is not expended, the work will just cease and everyone who is working on this at the moment will go back to their day jobs, particularly in SAPOL but a range of other agencies.

It is important to remember that this is not all money that has been expended thus far. The money that the Treasurer announced in the budget is an allocation that will be spent over time as we prepare. We have got no choice but to do this. Well, that is not true, we could withdraw. That is an option. If we were willing to withdraw we could not expend these funds. I am not too sure why we would do that. I mean, why would we give up when we are in an amazing position to host one of the most important conferences globally, let alone the economic impact of the conference itself.

It also presents potentially a state-defining opportunity to put South Australia and Adelaide on the map in terms of the work that we have all collectively done to decarbonise our economy in a way that is truly globally leading. That is an opportunity I do not want to turn down. In fact, that is more important to me than filling up hotel rooms in this instance.

Another thing worth noting is the Leader of the Opposition asked about sunk costs. The opposite is true here, because all of the preparatory work that has gone into this has actually been illuminating because, for probably the first time, what we have seen is an unprecedented degree of collaboration between venues in the precinct where COP will be rather than competition. The default setting for Adelaide Venue Management is to look at Adelaide Oval as competition and vice versa. It is the same with Memorial Drive and it is the same with the Festival Centre.

Here, what we have actually had to do is bring the Festival Centre, Memorial Drive, Adelaide Oval, and Adelaide Venue Management through the Convention Centre, and other parts, all together to sing from the same hymn sheet, to actually work together to put our best foot forward. What that has developed within government is a bunch of IP that actually invites us to lift our eyes a little bit and look for other opportunities to do big events where we look at that precinct holistically rather than in competition with one another. That has been valuable, and all of that IP will be retained in government regardless of the outcome.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How much has been expended to date on it?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I received is that $890,000 was spent in 2024-25 and in the upcoming financial year $3.142 million; that is budgeted in 2025-26. Again, that goes to the point, if that is what is budgeted and we find out we miss out, then we will stop spending the money, obviously.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The same line. If successful in the bid, what is the total expected cost for infrastructure and personnel, especially around additional police?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The cost of the hosting of the event is substantial, but that will be subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the South Australian government and the federal government. Of course, it is the federal government that wears the overall majority of the cost. We have made clear to the commonwealth that we will partner with them, and there are expenses that we will incur, a significant proportion of which will be, in effect, in kind, because we will be utilising existing government resources within budgets, but there will be other expenses that will have to be negotiated with the commonwealth. Discussions are in situ with the federal government, particularly since the Prime Minister made his announcement that it would be Adelaide that hosted—in the event that we get it. Those negotiations will be ongoing.

Part of the challenge that we have got here is time. This is in November next year. The Convention Centre—and I was speaking to Martin about this recently—is taking bookings out to 2029 at the moment, or something. It is incredible how far in advance these things are booked. This is in 18 months—less than 18 months. For the poor people that I have imposed this on, it is actually terrifying. They have got no choice but to get to work under the assumption that we may get this. If we do not find out until later in the year, hypothetically, that we get it, then the window will almost be too small for us to start to do any preparatory work.

I had a briefing the other week with the police minister and a group of officials from DPC and SAPOL, and when you actually start to go through the level of detail that is required to plan this, frankly, I do not think the South Australian community have yet fully comprehended just the size and the scale of this thing. It is unlike anything we have ever hosted before, so all the preparatory work needs to reflect that and so we have got no choice but to get on with the task. It would be regrettable if we missed out on the opportunity, but, if we get it, it really could be a very special moment for the state.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will come back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, in terms of workforce increase and changes. You have got the program Staffing. You mentioned the staff numbers before, so you have got 296.9 FTEs for 2025-26 budgeted. That is up from 243.7 FTE actual—must be nice, about a 22 per cent increase. Why has the program increased its FTE count by almost 53 positions?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Because we are doing more work.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You are doing more work?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: A lot more work, yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Have new positions been created and, if so, what are those positions and what are their relevant salary bands and ranges?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If I could put a bit more detail about my previous succinct response about doing more work, it is literally true in two respects that DPC is doing more work. There is more work because of decisions that are taken by government, but then there is also more work that we are doing that other agencies used to do. So, again, machinery of government changes result in other departments not doing functions they once did and DPC taking them over. That accounts for a number of things.

For instance, I referred earlier to the Government Advertising and Insights Hub. We have reduced staffing in other agencies to consolidate it within DPC. That accounts for 15.7 FTEs. Other examples are: six people for disaster recovery funding arrangements; six people for security emergency recovery management projects with SAFECOM; two people working on foundation supports; and one person for the Museum review that I mentioned that occurred and community engagement budget measures.

If we take the Museum review, that is one person, so it is small beer in the scheme of things. But every time someone in this office announces that we are going to undertake this inquiry or we are going to do this piece of work or we are going to do this in terms of managing drought or whatever it might be—I know there was a big effort when we did the flooding response from that major flood that the member for Chaffey knows about all too well—that requires people to step up to the plate and do work. Often, those people will be transferred between agencies.

I have had a predisposition that where there is something that is of significant interest to the state and myself as Premier and affects more than one agency, then I think DPC often can be a good place to house a coordinating effort. I have been predisposed to do that on a few occasions. COP pursuit is a good example of that. We could have put that into any number of agencies, but I made the decision to do it in DPC so I have a direct line of sight of it. That is why we retain a line of sight of Lot Fourteen, which was put in DPC but again could be put in any number of different agencies.

There are a whole range of different things. Those things are not necessarily permanent in nature. The work that we did around the social media ban was a lot of policy effort that had to be coordinated somewhere. Because it was me leading the charge on that one, we centralised a lot of that effort out of DPC. Every time we do one of these things, it has a consequence and requires a resource. But, like I said, lots of these things are examples of machinery of government changes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: So can you outline which transfers or new initiatives have affected the headcount for the program, and can you confirm that the current FTE allocation is sufficient for 2025-26?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As it stands, yes, except to say this: that the government and I as Premier reserve our right to adjust it. If an opportunity presents itself or a challenge emerges that we have to respond to, then we have to be flexible to be able to do that.

What I would say is in terms of headcount overall, DPC—no different to any other department—has to be alive to the fact that it just cannot be an ever-increasing pool of resources. The Government Advertising and Insights Hub is a good example of this. This is a savings and efficiency opportunity and something that was a function of a cabinet decision, because we had to put in some discipline to make sure that we did not take out a communications person from SA Health, for instance, and put them in DPC only for SA Health to then replace that person doing the same work. So there has to be a bit of discipline around it.

But we do not want to see an ever-graduating increase unless it is coming from somewhere else, otherwise it has broader budget implications, which is pretty important to us given that we have been so determined to run budget surpluses.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I move to the Premier's Delivery Unit (PDU) in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If we are moving on to the PDU, I might invite the CEO of the PDU to pull up a pew. Can I introduce Mr Rik Morris, who is the CEO of the Premier's Delivery Unit.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The PDU was budgeted to spend $2.012 million in 2024-25, whereas its estimated expenditure in 2024-25 was $2.395 million. What was the reason for the overspend by the PDU, and can you outline how this money was spent?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I can, because I asked this question myself. There are a few different things, and if you want to go into detail, I am happy to do that. The PDU was established principally to make sure there was a consolidated monitoring of election commitments within the government. There were well over 500 different commitments.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Like 'fix ramping'; those sorts of commitments?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is an example. For the over 500 commitments, we are very methodically and deliberately going through, making sure that we tick off every last one that we can. At this stage, I think we are on track to honour the overwhelming majority of those commitments, which stands the government in good stead in terms of honouring the commitments we made to the people of the state. Your job, of course, is to focus on the ones that we have not honoured. That is your task, that is your responsibility.

We want to make sure we honour as many as we can, and that is what this work is doing. With time, not just from my perspective but also from other agencies' perspectives, there has been a value that has been demonstrated by the PDU, which is a relatively new thing—not in the context of other state governments or national governments globally, but it is certainly new in a South Australian frame. It has had value.

The PDU, for it to be successful, has to work in collaboration with other agencies. It does not walk around with a big stick. I do not reflect on this publicly very often, but the CEO of that particular agency has this sort of way about him that lends itself to, in a collaborative way, making sure things are delivered, which then invites the question of whether or not there are other things that the PDU can do that are of use to the government and the people we serve. For instance, as there have been new initiatives that the government has undertaken beyond the commitments that we made at the election, there are areas of monitoring and scrutiny that we have asked the PDU to do that they were not originally budgeted to be able to do.

One of the areas I would cite that is really important to us is the Housing Roadmap. The Housing Roadmap is a huge policy effort in the lead-up to the middle of next year. It is one of the most comprehensive housing policies that we have had in this state in generations, and there are a lot of moving parts to it. It is not one commitment: it is a suite of measures, and I have asked the PDU to monitor that. That is over and above what was already there, so that invites a bit of work. But also just in general policy coordination, you want to make sure that you are not just funding a local consideration. It makes sense if things are looked at in a consolidated or holistic way, and that policy work remains ongoing outside of just delivering election commitments.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Are you able to please provide the committee with a list of the 500 commitments you referenced that the PDU is working towards delivering, and for each their status?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What, you want me to start going through all 500?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I asked for a list.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I mean we can. Let me start.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I asked for a list. Can you provide a list?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: To provide a list. Well, I am more than happy to inquire whether or not we can furnish that. I think most of it is all out there; in fact, I think you have it.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Like on the website that you have deleted?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: You have had a copy of it for a while.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What 'Pete Delete'? That one there?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I thought that you had a copy. Isn't this your job?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, but we want updated information, the status of each.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am more than happy to go away and provide some consideration to that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Okay, thank you. Going to expenses and actuals, again in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22—thanks, Mr Chair, for allowing play on as well, it is very appreciated, the flow. The PDU has now been provided, by the looks of it, an increased budget of $2.416 million in 2025-26 and two additional FTEs. You sort of touched on it, but why has the PDU been provided with additional funding for the financial year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The answer to that rests in my previous answer.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The Housing Roadmap, even though you have a super minister?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That was an example, but there are a number of other measures as well.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Will those additional resources enable you to deliver your election promises?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It has been a huge help, and if you look at the volume of promises we have delivered upon, which is I think objectively a very large number, it has been a huge help. That has become more apparent to me over the last couple of years because in government things come up, problems emerge, crises develop that are not anticipated. When that happens, the first thing I do is get on the phone to Rick Persse, the CEO of Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and agency heads and say, 'What are we doing about this? How do we confront the challenge? What can we do here?' and that then commands a whole bunch of effort.

What I have witnessed in previous governments, not just here but abroad, is that all those things become all consuming. Again, I would use the Housing Roadmap as an example; last year it was the social media reform; honouring our commitment around electoral donations took up a huge amount of my time; obviously the drought is at the moment and we had the floods. All of these things happen. That is the nature of government. And then, of course, there is Whyalla. That is probably the one—that and the Housing Roadmap probably are the two most intensive efforts.

What happens is you get consumed by these things, as you absolutely should, and then the attention of government goes elsewhere and then all of a sudden you wake up one day and you find out you have not honoured a commitment to the people of Black to deliver a 24/7 pharmacy, right? This is a problem, so that is where having a discrete consolidated effort within government which has one singular task to monitor those commitments and make sure we deliver upon them has been of use, not just to the political apparatus of government for the political purposes but also to the heads of departments to make sure that someone is monitoring this and keeping them on track as we impose ever more requests on them to do other things.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Still on Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22, which notes that PDU is set to oversee progress on delivery of initiatives identified within state budgets, the Housing Roadmap and remaining election commitments in 2025-26. The question I have there is: what specific initiatives from the Housing Roadmap are the PDU overseeing?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is a number: all the activities within SA Water, which is a significant proportion of it, but also there were a large number of other commitments within the Housing Roadmap. The first thing is ongoing engagement with making sure that the relevant agencies, particularly DHUD, have ongoing engagement with the industry. We were accelerating the code amendments, the process that exists around code amendments that had to be accelerated.

There are also the specific commitments that we have made around strategic infill sites—take, for instance, what we have said around Southwark and affordable housing components—and the work that we are doing with the commonwealth on its programs in conjunction with us. One of the big areas and more challenging areas, although it sounds simple, is the commitments that we have made on social infrastructure and planning around social infrastructure.

Obviously we also announced detail earlier this year, following the Housing Roadmap last year, on all the work we are doing in the north in particular around new schools and other critical social infrastructure as well as the new Northern Adelaide Parklands. That is actually quite a new and innovative thing where we are capturing the value from the uplift to the cost to the value of land, particularly around Kudla. We are doing a code amendment there to make sure that a whole range of landowners who are going from rural living that has currently quite a low value in terms of the value of the land, and once we rezone it or change its—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Zoning.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Zoning, yes. There was another term I was looking for. Once we do the code amendment, instantaneously the value of that land goes up. We have had to do work to make sure we have a mechanism to capture the value of that land that we can, in turn, invest in a Northern Parklands that is a long 20 to 30 year project for the northern suburbs.

All of these commitments within the Housing Roadmap need to be monitored. It is not the job of the PDU to deliver those things—that is DHUD—but to monitor them and provide me a line of sight over what we are doing. Curtis Road is another good example of a really important project out there to be able to maintain the social licence of the community in what is a growing area. So there is a fair bit of work in that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What does the PDU do that yourself and the minister cannot do?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Monitoring, getting into the department, independently verifying information to make sure things that are said to be happening are actually happening: it is important. Think about it—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Why would the minister not do that, or the CE?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Well, they should be doing that. I guess you will appreciate that a monitoring exercise—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is like an extra layer of oversight.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I want to refrain from using terms like 'cop on the beat' and so forth, but it is about having a direct line of sight that is only reportable to me and directly to the Premier to make sure that everything is happening.

The Leader of the Opposition, having been a minister, will appreciate that one of the challenges in government is that a political leader needs to be able to test the information that is being put before them—and that is not necessarily because people seek to deliberately mislead the minister, but information can be massaged, so to speak, and I think the way you address that in these offices is you try to have multiple sources of truth or multiple lines of inquiry to test information and validate information. You ask questions constantly so that the information that you are getting then informs your judgement about whether or not something is working or failing and is as accurate as possible.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Have you had any examples of where the integrity of the information received from a minister or CE has led you to the conclusion that the PDU is justified?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I have.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Can you give us any examples?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This is the problem with being candid in these forums. I will not name specific people, but one of the really important programs to the government is what we are doing around technical colleges, and I think it is fair to say that the work of the PDU around where those programs sit in terms of timelines has been something I have been very grateful for.

There is a great team working within the Department for Education on delivering those technical colleges. It is actually really quite hard. Delivering the physical buildings on existing school sites, making sure they are on time, is tricky and that has to be done in conjunction with actually developing the partnerships with major employers so that our model of the technical colleges works, where a kid gets out of school and gets a job on day one, in effect. That has actually been quite an ambitious undertaking. I am just giving you one example of having the PDU report to me on that in conjunction with the minister, and the CE of that department has been really quite helpful.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What is the gender ratio of the PDU? There are only nine of them, how many men and how many women?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You do not know?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Off the top of my head, no, I do not.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There are a couple just there.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I know off the top of my head what the gender ratio is of your team: I think you have two women.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We ask the questions, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not asking you a question, I am answering it.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has indicated he will give you the information. Let's move on.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, sir.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The other thing the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate is that I, and I alone, get to employ chief executives. We do not employ everybody in the public sector, but we are very proud as a government of our record of positions that are under our appointment having, as best we can, a balance in terms of gender mixes, and take our board appointments as an example of that.

I think that maybe for the first time in the history of the state, over half of all the people the government has appointed to boards are women—over half. I am really proud of that and it is something we monitor very closely. In terms of CEs, the Under Treasurer for the first time ever is a female. I can go through all the ones I employ, but the head of the OECD, which is probably one of the most important policy efforts within the government, something the PDU monitors, is female; the head of DCP is female; Health, the largest agency and governed by a considerable margin, is female; the DHS CEO is female; AGD is female.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The question was about the PDU, sir.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: And I said I am happy to take that on notice, particularly given that I do not employ the staff within PDU. That is a decision of the chief executive.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What outcomes or KPIs will the PDU be monitoring for housing in 2025-26?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think I covered off on that, but one of the things that we will continue to monitor is the statistics around the homes that we are building. We have the commencement and completion rate up in South Australia to some of the highest levels we have ever seen, to the extent that the growth in commencements and completions is exceeding the nation. The national average is falling and we are increasing. They are not my numbers, they are numbers from independent organisations such as the ABS. What we are doing is working and we want it to keep working because, as we have discussed in the parliament during question time a lot, it is the government's view, and I think most people's view, that if you are not increasing supply you are not really making a difference at all.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In 2023, the government said building would commence on land-lease sites in Sellicks Beach, Dry Creek and Concordia in 2024. Is the PDU responsible for overseeing the delivery of these homes and, if so, when will they be completed?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The PDU, like I said, has a monitoring role. They are not overseeing the delivery, that is what I explained earlier.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Are you satisfied with the PDU's role in monitoring that KPI or that delivery since it has obviously been somewhat delayed from what you initially set out?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I take a lot of comfort in the verified independent data that is on the full public record around the acceleration in growth in the housing supply market here in the state of South Australia. Particularly relative to the rest of the country where it is falling, it is growing here. I take a lot of comfort from demonstrations of success that we see from the Business Council of Australia or the Housing Industry Association independently nominating South Australia as the best policy effort and, separately again, outcomes. We want to maintain that status as best as we can and keep it going, because the challenge does not disappear overnight: this has been a challenge that has emerged over 30 years, if not longer.

We are just going to have sustained commencements and completions of new homes and get that number up as high as we can. I think what we are doing is working, but there is a pretty long way to go because we still have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. In one respect, that is a reflection of a strong economy where there is a lot of demand, and people are living here and they will have jobs, but we need to keep it going.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to targets 2025-26, overseeing progress of delivery of remaining commitments, again, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22. With respect to ramping, will the ramping crisis be fixed by the 2026 state election?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Are you asking a question or reciting something?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No—same page, talking about the delivery of remaining election commitments. Will the ramping crisis be fixed by the 2026 state election?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We are working as hard as we can. When the Leader of the Opposition looks at the budget papers and sees not just billions, but billions and billions of dollars of new money—I think we are getting close to $9 billion now of new money in Health—it very much is a demonstration of how seriously we are taking that effort, and the work that we are doing. We have employed 600 doctors over and above attrition since we have been elected. That is six times more than we committed to over and above attrition.

I remember one of my first press conferences I did down at the RAH, after being elected, and there was quite reasonably a lot of critique and examination from the media about whether or not it was even possible to get 100 over attrition given the tightness in the market coming through. Well, we have done six times that and a lot more in terms of nurses, and we have over 300 ambos as well. The work continues. I would love to be in a better position in regard to hospital ramping.

The good news is there are a lot more people coming through, because ambulances are rolling up on time, and that is the difference between life and death, but I am alive to the fact that people who are on the ramp are often elderly people who have suffered a fall. They might not have high acuity—clearly, that is why they are there—but nonetheless they would be better off inside the hospital. More importantly, the ambulance would be better off out responding to patients because their now response times would improve yet again. We see it in the data; we have seen all the improvement in response times. When we have a good week in ramping, which does happen, then response times go up that week. So it just has to be a constant effort.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the biggest problem I've got—when I say 'I've got', that we've got and every state government has got—is what is happening with aged care. There are over 240 at the moment in metro hospitals. I think it was somewhere around about 40 when we came to government. If those 200 people were not there that is 200 beds in the system instantly, and 200 beds across the system is a complete game changer. It would literally be a complete game changer if those 200 people were not there in terms of ramping hours. It would collapse, which is desperately frustrating. I am meeting with the federal health minister next week and, again, this will be the number one topic of discussion.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What KPIs is the PDU now working to when it comes to delivering the government's promise to fix ramping?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is a good question—and I understand that, and I do not diminish the legitimacy of the opposition pointing to the words 'fix ramping'. What actually underpinned that was a rather comprehensive health policy, and this all gets glossed over in the argy-bargy and rough-and-tumble of politics. We listed every hospital that we could and committed very specifically to various new services, and new bed numbers at specific hospitals.

We said, 'This is the number of new beds at the Modbury, at The QEH, at Flinders, at Lyell Mac, at Victor Harbor, at Mount Gambier'—you name it—'This is the number of mental health beds, this is the number of drug and alcohol beds. This is where we are going to put a new cancer service.' It is very, very specific detail in regard to that health policy.

You focus on the headline. I understand that. Like I said, I do not deny any of it or diminish it, but we did have a lot of detail out there and I suspect you would be focusing on that had we not honoured those commitments, but we either have or are, and the PDU's job is to actually monitor: if we committed X number of beds at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, are we delivering those? And the answer is yes, which is why it does not get talked about in the media because we have done what we said we were going to do.

I was down at Mount Gambier last week and the hospital down there had a commitment for drug and alcohol detox beds, and also some specific commitments around the emergency department there. That construction is underway, but going to the specific nature of are we still delivering on the drug and alcohol detox beds—because it is an issue in regional South Australia, and the South-East is not an exception—that level of granular detail is what the PDU assesses. I get a report frequently, as do various subcommittees of cabinet. I get a report monthly on that from the PDU.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: On any objective measure, the government has delivered 36 months of the worst ramping in our state's history, so how is hiring more bureaucrats in the PDU rather than, say, more frontline health workers going to fix the ramping crisis?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Are you kidding? I mean, there are seven people on the PDU going to nine. I think I mentioned that last year alone we employed an extra 300 doctors over and above attrition in one year. We said we would do 100 in four years; we did 300 in one year. We have 1,462 nurses over and above attrition, 301 ambos over and above attrition, 385 allied health workers over and above attrition, and 2,794 extra frontline health workers in a clinical capacity on the frontline as a result of our investments—2,794. I mean, that is a population of a whole town in the system today. SA Health now employs over 50,000 people. So, yes, I think it has been valuable having two people monitoring and making sure that we get over 50,000.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Will the Premier provide the public an opportunity to track the progress of the PDU in delivering election commitments? For example, have you considered a published regular update—maybe a weekly update or a dashboard—about all these commitments for full transparency and accountability?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The PDU reports to me—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: They seem to operate in the shadows.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, I don't agree. He is right here.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: He is here now.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: He is answering your questions.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: He has his Redlegs tie on, I think. Very good.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There you go, you have something in common. I should have known, had I known. We have been very transparent about this. We announced the policy publicly that this is something we wanted to do. It is nine people, or seven becoming nine, and I appreciate that it has been a line of inquiry from the opposition in this forum at each and every estimates, as it should be. That is what you want to inquire about. I understand that, particularly given that the CEO, obviously, has been connected to my side of politics for some time. That invites assumptions and agitations, and I get that, but from my perspective and the government's perspective, and if you ask people within the government who have no political connections or persuasions, it has been quite useful.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will move on. You mentioned technical colleges delivery. This is still Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22. One of the PDU's key 2025-26 targets is obviously to oversee delivery of the remaining four new technical colleges at Port Augusta, Tonsley, The Heights and Mount Gambier. What is the timeline for those four technical colleges to be both completed and also operational?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am going to do this from memory and I am going to look to the PDU to tell me if I have got this wrong. These are questions for the education minister, but I am very keen to answer everything I reasonably can. Modbury will be operational for first term next year. Mount Gambier, which I saw from a distance when I was down there last week, is opening at the beginning of next year.

That leaves Tonsley and Port Augusta. Port Augusta is on track as well. We are hoping that Port Augusta will be open potentially even this year and same again for Tonsley. Enrolments are open at all of them now. I asked the Hon. Blair Boyer about this the other day and it is actually better than what we saw. It was a bit of a challenge in the very first instance with Findon because it was a new thing that no-one really knew about. People were wanting to understand what it was all about but, with people having learned about Findon and seen Findon within the system, and also parents alike, we are seeing good numbers thus far at the other sites.

There is still a bit of work going on around the employer partners like we have with BAE, Helping Hand and others. There is still some work to be done to lock away a few partners, but that is progressing and hopefully we will be able to make some announcements once that is squared away soon.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Is the Premier able to expand on the earlier comment that he made about there being a level of concern about information provided to the PDU about the delivery of technical colleges? Are you able to expand on that?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not really. I have made my remarks. I am seeking to provide a candid example to the Leader of the Opposition where it has been of particular use. I am not in the business of focusing on challenges that have been adequately overcome within the public sector. That is just one example of where it was really quite useful, particularly in regard to Findon in the first instance, because that was the first one and it was really quite tricky.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, with respect to government advertising. I want to ask about the Government Advertising and Insights Hub. The budget outlines $1.9 million in 2025-26 for a Government Advertising and Insights Hub within DPC. What is the purpose of the hub and why has it been established? Will all government advertising activities now sit under DPC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not all, but most. Some agencies we have deliberately exempted for a range of reasons. Tourism is a good example of that. SATC have had an advertising function forever and on all accounts are very good at it. In fact, a very significant proportion, if not the lion's share, of the SATC budget is advertising. Whereas other government agencies, frankly, do not do it. There is a specific set of skills here.

We had instances where the government was launching campaigns and effectively going out to the market at the same time and therefore competing with one another on bidding for advertising slots in a way that made it more expensive, which is just crazy. This is particularly true in the electronic media. Government advertising campaigns can have a significant impact on the TV market. I had one TV broadcaster recently recite to me the fact that our expenditure had gone down with them.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Was that socially awkward for you?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, it was not. We are not going to apologise for doing our job efficiently. That is what we are here to do. But it was a demonstration of the fact that not everyone is a winner from us doing this. We had government agencies bidding each other up, which is madness. Having a greater degree of coordination is important, as the Leader of the Opposition would well know. In any advertising campaign the work that sits behind the creative can often be a very substantial cost component of it. Having a coordination of that effort as well can also deliver savings.

I have seen some of the government advertising. There have been budgets that have emerged and evolved over time, years and years. I saw an example that was drawn to me by the former CE of DPC of an ad, or a form of advertising around hot water taps can burn if you use them—this sort of madness.

It has to be consolidated and there has to be a greater degree of scrutiny. If departments have a bunch of money to do an advertising campaign, they will spend it. Our point is, let's actually verify that it needs to be spent before spending it. Putting it in centrally aims to achieve that objective. There has been a lot of consternation and inconvenience around this, because departments do not like giving up resources, and I get that.

There will be imperfections that emerge through this model, but it is genuine to be far more consolidated with government and make sure that the efficient use of taxpayers' money is done effectively, acknowledging that some departments are very good at what they do but advertising is not part of their core business.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How many FTEs will sit within the hub?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There will be 24.3 And, again, all of those people have come from other agencies. The budget allocation to fund that has had no net increase.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Has the government appointed a Government Advertising and Insights Hub ED (executive director), what is their salary and why did the Premier decide to backflip on the original salary offered for the role of around $430,000 per year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is not my appointment, that is the first thing; it is the appointment of the CE of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, so it is Rick's appointment. Mr Andrew Fotheringham was appointed as executive director following a merit-based selection process and commenced in March 2025. I think recently—in fact, on Wednesday—I asked if I can meet him myself, as I have not yet had the chance to do that.

I understand that Andrew has extensive experience in research, development and implementation of advertising campaigns and previously served as the general manager of Marketing and Communications at Events South Australia. In regard to the Leader of the Opposition's question about salary—and this is advice, I think quite rightly, I am receiving—in keeping with established protocol, the salary will not be disclosed, but I am advised it is at the lower end of the re-advertised salary base, which did cause me a degree of surprise, and that is what I indicated would be the case last November.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In respect of the Government Advertising and Insights Hub in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, what safeguards are in place to ensure that this public advertising managed or overseen by the hub is not utilised for political advertising?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is a range of processes. There are audit processes that sit around that, and obviously it cannot. There are rules that have to be complied with that, to the best of my knowledge, we have not altered since we came to government—the same rules that the former government had.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How is compliance with the public sector advertising guidelines monitored and who has that oversight of campaign content?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: They have to be approved through GCAC, which is the same process that the former government had.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Why is DPC a better place than SAPOL to deliver critical road safety campaigns?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The subject matter expertise is being retained in agencies; it is just the advertising effort and coordination that is being moved to the insights hub.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How much has the taxpayer spent on government advertising this year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is all publicly published. So far this financial year? Or do you mean is it budgeted in the next financial year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Both, if you have that at hand.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If you google it you might find it.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I prefer ChatGPT.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: 2023-24 was 39.7 and 2024-25 thus far is 27.6.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am glad you asked me now: these numbers look very modest in comparison to a former government of another political persuasion where, for instance, the numbers were in the 40s.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There was a lot of information to relay to the public during the COVID pandemic.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, that is right—as there always is.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think the public was very grateful for that.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As there always is.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Like the Building What Matters campaign: was that related to COVID?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How much did the government advertising campaign on bringing trains back into public hands cost the South Australian taxpayer?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Lots of it was on our own trains, so I do not know how that gets accounted for. Are you talking about the signs that are on the trains?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to follow that up; I do not have that—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Are you able to provide maybe a breakdown per campaign to the parliament?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This is one of the virtuous things: because the trains are now owned and operated by the people of South Australia again, it means that the advertising goes to us. This is obviously something that may have been very different had the trains been privatised, as was done.

If we tried to pull a stunt like what you did in privatising the trains, the PDU would have caught up on that because they would say, 'That's not consistent with an election commitment.' Obviously, now that we own and operate the trains, putting signage on the outside of them might have a cost of putting it up but it is not like we are paying someone else to have advertising on their trains. These are ours now.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No, but it still comes at a cost. You will provide that cost?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I honestly just do not have that at hand.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In terms of public information activities in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, the 2023-24 actual expenses for the program included $1.2 million on public information activities. Is the Premier able to please outline what is the nature of these public information activities? What were they?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, which page again?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Page 18 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, 2023-24 actual expenses for the program included $1.2 million on public information activities.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You do not know what they are—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Off the top of my head, no.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —between the army of people there?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Hang on, let's see if we can. Does anyone know? I have advice. That is in respect to 2023-24. I am happy to take as much as we can and come back to you but, for instance, the equivalent things for this year are More Homes for South Australians—but this is in respect to 2024-25, so I do not know if it is helping you in regard to that particular budget line. It is things like More Homes for South Australians, Building a Bigger Health System; these are the types of things that we are talking about. My advice here is in respect to 2024-25, but like I said, all the campaigns that we run publicly are accounted for and obviously seen publicly, because that is the whole idea.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17. I want to talk a little bit about the North Adelaide Golf Course development, if we may, which I know is dear to your heart. How much is allocated in 2025-26 for the North Adelaide Golf Course works?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have is that there is no money in DPC's budget for 2025-26. There is an allocation of funds within DTF that will be allocated as we get close to starting construction and so forth, but there is no money sitting within DPC for 2025-26.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am only mentioning it because it is within the Premier and Cabinet section. What is the total expected cost to the taxpayer?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Like I said, there is a budget allocation that the Treasurer has made. Part of the challenge here is we do not yet know what the final cost will be of the design, although we have an indicative option for costings. Thus far, what we understand is it is going to be in line with what that is, but like I said, that is a question for the Treasurer.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: So it is a DTF thing.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Because the money does not sit in DPC.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I understand. Of the $45 million, how much of this is permanent? That figure has been publicly provided, but how much of that is permanent capital costs, how much is temporary and how much is annual?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, you would have to ask that question of—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You do not have that information; okay.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: But the overwhelming majority of it, I can tell you, would be capital, because the ambition here and the goal is to make a capital investment in a way that then any operating costs will be funded through the operations of the course itself. At the moment, the Adelaide City Council is losing money on this, and it is budgeted to keep losing money. Someone highlighted to me the council budget papers just yesterday, and they have an operational loss at the moment principally because it is old and tired.

It is exactly the same challenge at the Aquatic Centre. The Aquatic Centre was costing the council money. They did all the work to analyse how they turn that around, and the way was having a new Aquatic Centre that would be cheaper to run and more efficient and productive. The problem was they did not have the capital to do it. This is the exact same challenge. This is something that we are very keen to keep reminding people: we do not see these assets belonging to the residents of the City of Adelaide. These are assets that belong to everybody.

We can ensure that is the case by the state government doing it, rather than the City Council. It is something that everybody should use. With the Aquatic Centre, for instance, a huge number of regional swimming carnivals for a range of kids and so forth will be able to get access to it. It is in the city, which means that like the rest of the city as far as we are concerned it belongs to everybody, not just ratepayers within the City of Adelaide, although they of course are an important part of the community as well.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The paper does mention 'progress design and commence construction works' on page 17. Who has been appointed as the design team for the golf course, and how many members are there in the design team?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We have already announced publicly that Greg Norman Golf Course Design is doing the design. They are not government employees; we are contracting someone else to do that. But there is also contracting to other people around heritage. I cannot say who or which companies, but there are architecture and heritage architects, Aboriginal heritage engagement, there is a separate company that has been engaged to look at the overlay to make sure that the course design is going to be able to accommodate the event itself, there is urban planning, an ecologist, topographical surveying—so there is a bunch of people working on it.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What was the process undertaken that led to the selection of Greg Norman's design, and why was there no public tender for this?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there are a range of procurement protocols that have to be gone through whenever a government engages with a service like that. My advice is that was complied with in the context of doing a direct engagement. Obviously we are talking about very discrete and specialist skills that are not just sitting around.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There is only one Greg Norman. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is obviously the case; there are not two. So cabinet made that appointment accordingly. One of the considerations from government is making sure that we have someone with the appropriate expertise and the reputation to deliver it to be able to achieve our objectives here, which is to have something that is genuinely world class. I do not think anyone seriously, to the best of my knowledge, and if the opposition wants to they can, but I do not think anyone would seek to diminish or take away the fact that Greg Norman Golf Course Design has a very accomplished record of delivery.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: So there was no public tender. Was there an unsolicited bid made?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How much will Greg Norman or his company be paid for the design?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there are multiple stages to the work they undertake and that gets done iteratively. We are in the first stage because there is the design work and then there is the actual construction and delivery, and that is being dealt with, like I said, iteratively. Obviously the contract is subject to commercial-in-confidence arrangements, But needless to say, there has been a bit of effort within the department to make sure that there is appropriate analysis to make sure that we are not paying more than what we need to get what it is that we are getting.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How many stages and how much will be paid at each stage?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The first stage is the design stage and then you move into a construction phase. I think there are two main phases; I am not too sure if there is a commissioning phase.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Who signs off on the stages and the payment of each stage?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is done through departmental procurement practices and there would be someone within the department who does that, presumably.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Will there be any subsequent increase to fees as a result of the upgrade, and does the total cost allocated for the course cover the cost of replanting any trees that may need to be removed?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that the construction phase cost will have to include the cost of replanting trees.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Did you get advice on what was a fair price for the work, and who provided the advice?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that it is part of that internal procurement exercise. There is a departmental exercise that does go through a verification function or purpose or role of ensuring that it is a fair price.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Was there a probity officer for that procurement, and who was it?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that for something of this size and scale, this type of project, that would not be ordinary practice. It does not meet the threshold where you would normally have someone specifically employed to do that. It is not like a hospital build or a major civil program.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I move to business events, if I may. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, it says that in 2024-25 DPC incurred $20.2 million in additional expenses for 'support for business events and initiatives'. Is the Premier able to outline what events and initiatives that was used for?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice that I have here is that the lion's share of this sits with Adelaide Venue Management events, but not exclusively. Let's say there is a medical conference that travels around globally. They often have event providers who do that coordination and go around the world and shop them, so to speak, looking for bids. There is a function where we do our own analysis to work out what is worth it, who comes, how many people, what is the time of the year relative to other things going on in Adelaide, and so forth. Our objective here is to stimulate demand when we need it versus when we do not, so we are not going around trying to recruit business events when Gather Round is on.

Currently, Business Events Adelaide and the Adelaide Convention Centre have secured 196 events out to 2033—I said 2028 earlier—supported by the Business Events Bid Fund. The advice I have is that that has the potential to deliver an estimated $950 million in economic benefit.

In addition, there are 100 unsecured events currently in development, with a potential to deliver an economic benefit of $698 million. Historically, over the past six years, the Business Events Bids Fund has secured events that will deliver over $1.28 billion in economic benefit.

This is something you have to be in the market to do. The Convention Centre and surrounds have the same challenge that Adelaide Oval has, it is a sunk economic cost unless you actually fill them. The objective you have to have is just to fill these things and have them busy as much as you can. Notwithstanding that the industrial arrangements at the Convention Centre provide a huge amount of flexibility to AVM to flex up and flex down, there is still a residual cost that sits there churning away if you do not have them occupied, so you have to be out in the market and bidding for them and that is what we seek to do here.

For instance, when we were in India we met with the Global International Student Conference which is made up not so much of students but the agents that facilitate international students. It happened to be on while we were in India and we took the time to meet with them, given that we are in the market to try to secure that event in the future as well, which is a massive one. So this is just an ongoing effort that we seek to do.

In terms of specifics, since you have asked your question I have asked if we can get a list of all those events. Obviously, AVM has a list of events they have hosted. That is a question put through to the minister responsible, Minister Bettison. In terms of the amount that we give each one we do not disclose because, as you will appreciate, it is one of these bidding war exercises and we try not to show our competitors our hand.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: From 2025-26 onwards, the budget looks like it includes a more modest $2.6 million per year for Business Events Adelaide. Is the Premier able to outline what initiatives and support that funding will target?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is exactly what I have just described. My understanding is that they go and do the work on behalf of us. There is a specialist team in there and this is part of their operational funding.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Let's move on to Lot Fourteen. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, there is mention of Lot Fourteen, tenancy support, Adelaide University agreement. The paper notes $4.8 million spent in 2024-25 related to an agreement with Adelaide University regarding tenancy at Lot Fourteen with a matching $4.8 million in income from Renewal SA. Is the Premier able to outline what the terms of the agreement are between the university and Lot Fourteen?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Di Dixon runs Lot Fourteen. There is probably a more technical way of saying that: state lead for Lot Fourteen. We announced—I am just trying to recall exactly when we did that—with the feds and also the university the establishment of the Australian Defence Technologies Academy at Lot Fourteen, which is a collaboration between state government, federal government, the university, and also the DSTG. We were there with Tanya Monro when we announced it.

What we have sought to do as a government, and more recently to be able to get some runs on the board—obviously space is at Lot Fourteen; the former Labor government put the Australian Institute for Machine Learning down at Lot Fourteen—is get a defence presence down at Lot Fourteen, because obviously everything that is happening with the defence industry is at that cutting edge and invites a huge amount of private sector capital investment.

Having space, defence, AIML—and then all of the other private sector start-ups in the ecosystem down at Lot Fourteen—we thought defence having a presence made sense, particularly with the amalgamation of the university next door and what have you, hence the establishment of the academy. An amount of $4.75 million from the state government was committed to the University of Adelaide to support the presence of Lot Fourteen, but in actual fact—and I have just learnt something—part of that was actually consistent with the commitment that the former government made around Glenthorne Farm.

Correct me if I have this wrong, but part of the sale agreement between the university and the South Australian government over Glenthorne Farm in turn had us making a commitment to a future allocation, and that allocation commitment was sitting within Renewal. When the current state government obviously was trying to do the defence initiative, and the academy, the funds got transferred out of Renewal to DPC in order to facilitate this. That is the advice I have received.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: On that note, how many tenants are currently at Lot Fourteen?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are 700 people, 160 companies.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How many tenants have left Lot Fourteen in the last three years?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What are the vacancy rates like at the moment? What measures is the government implementing to increase tenancy there at Lot Fourteen?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As of 30 March this year, a few weeks ago, it had an occupancy rate of over 94 per cent.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, the corporate expenses realignment.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Variations to the allocation of corporate expenses resulting from machinery of government changes?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That is the one. Is the Premier or his team able to explain what is meant by machinery of government changes, and what was the $11.5 million spent on?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This goes to the machinery of government movements that we see within government, so maybe if I just read what this advice says so I can make sure I get it right. The decrease in corporate—and this is a decrease, so this is a small amount in 2024-25 versus 2025-26. The decrease in corporate overheads in the 2025-26 budget compared to the 2024-25 estimated result primarily reflects machinery of government changes for the Office of the Chief Information Officer—who has gone to DTF—digital programs, and data and analytics, which has also gone to DTF, and a population strategy transferring to DSD as well last year. Last year, the Chief Information Officer, digital programs and data analytics we transferred out to DTF, and population strategy we transferred to the Department of State Development.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Let's go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 12, ministerial office resources, 46 FTE. Of the 46 FTE allocated to the Premier's office, how many of these staff are media advisers and how many of them are social media advisers?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This is all gazetted. All ministerial staff and their salary allocations are gazetted. That will be in there. I am happy to get that for you, but you have all that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The reason why we ask is, from memory, it only gets published about once a year and it can change throughout.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, that is true. If there has been a change, it would be at the margins. Ultimately those contracts are with me. I would delegate the contract provision to my chief of staff in many respects. Eight are in the media monitoring unit, but that is different to a media adviser, as you would well appreciate. The breakdown of the 38 in my office is what you are after, but my office does not obviously have 38 because a significant proportion that are media advisers get allocated to individual minister's offices.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Let's move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 44, Motor Sport Board.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will just invite Mark Warren, who you would know as the CEO of the Motor Sport Board. You asked a question before that someone in the team has come back with information for me regarding the $1.2 million in public information campaigns line. That includes mobile phones in schools and three-year-old preschool.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Okay, thank you. The Adelaide 500 sponsorship—now it is called the final—is in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 44. Can the Premier outline if the government will recoup the moneys owed by VAILO for their previous involvement in the Adelaide 500, and what part of the event was the money owed attributed to? Was it sponsorship costs? Was it hospitality suites? Which was it?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is that there was a multiyear naming rights agreement in place with VAILO for 2022 to 2024. The three-year naming rights partnership expired at the conclusion of the 2024 event, last year's event. VAILO were also responsible for the supply and installation of Super Screens for the event under a separate agreement, and that also concluded at the 2024 event. Following the necessary review of the event and reconciliation, including an assessment of services provided, which concluded recently, I am advised there are now no outstanding amounts to be paid by VAILO.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 44. In terms of budget versus actual, the SA Motor Sport Board support is budgeted at $25.422 million in 2025-26, yet it was $30.83 million in 2024-25. Why has the budget decreased for the next financial year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Good question. You might remember that we made a commitment following the first one that we were going to get shade on the pit straight grandstand for everybody in the crowd. There was a one-off cost in the 2024-25 year for the chicane grandstand, which was also shade. These are the costs associated with the former government selling off things.

When we got elected and had to reverse your selling off of the Adelaide 500 decision, I think the pit straight building was subject to a cooling off period or something to that effect. The building had been sold and we were able to intervene quickly to stop that sell-off, which allowed us to keep that, and thank goodness because that would be a very expensive thing to replace. But there was some stuff that we could not intervene on as a result of the former government's abolition of the Adelaide 500 and the attempt to sell everything off to stop us from being able to reinstate it in the event that we were re-elected.

Part of that meant one-off costs were still coming through, including in that year around the shade, but it also included electoral compliance works, along with other overall funding. They have had to transfer money to DPC because of the Government Advertising and Insights Hub, so hopefully the ads are better this year. That is the difference.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: For the most recent Adelaide 500, roughly what proportion of the total cost was covered by event revenue, and is the board on track to improve this cost recovery ratio over time?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that we have now got it back to a position where more than half of the cost of the event is recovered through ticket sales, sponsorship and corporate hospitality. Since we brought it back it has been trending up, which is what we want to continue, obviously. We have got a bit of hope that, with the Grand Final, that will grow again. Time will tell, because the Grand Final is a whole new concept for the format, but the advice that I have been receiving, and which certainly formed part of the negotiations that I have recently been having with Supercars, is that there is more than a hope, there is an ambition, that the change in that format will see that percentage continue to increase, which is the whole idea.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: And Lenny as well this year.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Well, hopefully.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will hand over to the member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: I will read out the omnibus questions:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2024 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 1 July 2024 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 1 July 2024?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 2024, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2025-26 for consultants and contractors, and for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2025, and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the number of executive staff to be cut to meet the government's commitment to reduce spending on the employment of executive staff and, for each position to be cut, its classification, total remuneration cost and the date by which the position will be cut?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what savings targets have been set for 2025-26 and each year of the forward estimates, and what is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

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

(a) What was the actual FTE count at June 2025 and what is the projected actual FTE account for the end of each year of the forward estimates?

(b) What is the budgeted total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

(c) How many targeted voluntary separation packages are estimated to be required to meet budget targets over the forward estimates and what is their estimated cost?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2025-26 and for each year of the forward estimates?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2025-26 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2025-26?

13. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide for each individual investing expenditure project administered, the name, total estimated expenditure, actual expenditure incurred to June 2024 and budgeted expenditure for 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

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

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

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

(a) Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2025-26? Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 5 June 2025 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today?

(b) Are you expecting any reallocations across your agencies' budget lines during 2025-26; if so, what is the nature of the reallocation?

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

(a) What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agencies in 2025-26?

(b) What percentage of total procurement spend for your agencies does this represent?

(c) How does this compare to last year?

17. What percentage of your department's budget has been allocated for the management of remote work infrastructure, including digital tools, cybersecurity, and support services, and how does this compare with previous years?

18. How many procurements have been undertaken by the department this FY. How many have been awarded to interstate businesses? How many of those were signed off by the CE?

19. How many contractor invoices were paid by the department directly this FY? How many and what percentage were paid within 15 days, and how many and what percentage were paid outside of 15 days?

20. How many and what percentage of staff who undertake procurement activities have undertaken training on participation policies and local industry participants this FY?

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the State Governor's Establishment and the Auditor-General's Department closed. The examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Administrative Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are referred to Estimates Committee B. I thank the Premier and his advisers and members of the opposition for their civil discussion.

Sitting suspended from 11:05 to 11:15.