DEPARTMENT OF FURTHER EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, $442,078,000

Witness:

Hon. J.J. Snelling, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Garrand, Chief Executive, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

Dr C. Fowler, Deputy Chief Executive, Planning, Policy and Innovation, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

Dr J. Michaelis, Chief Executive Officer, Bio Innovation SA.

Ms A. Nelson, Deputy Chief Executive, Bio Innovation SA.

Mr J. Kolovos, Director, Strategic Finance and Budget, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

Mr R. Murt, Executive Director, Shared Business Services, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Portfolio Statement, Volume 4, Part 14. Does the minister wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief introductory statement as the Minister for Science and Information Economy. The activities within this portfolio span a wide range of economic interests, such as defence, mining and information technology. The South Australian government recognises and supports the importance of supporting science and research in creating a growing and sustainable economy.

Some highlights: firstly, the Broadband Development Fund. Through the fund, the state government has driven improved broadband service to parts of regional South Australia. We are addressing metropolitan Adelaide's broadband blackspots issue with the AdamMax WiMAX project, which has already removed more than 70 per cent of Adelaide's blackspot footprint. We are working with industry and communities in first release areas of the national broadband network, such as Willunga and Prospect, to ensure they will be ready to take up broadband technology as the rollout begins.

Secondly, the government has made several commitments to improve STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills. For example, we have announced new scholarships for up to 75 honours level students per year, for four years, who will receive $5,000 in educational support to undertake full-time defence industry related projects—a total of $1.5 million over four years.

Thirdly, the ARC Centres of Excellence. In 2009, the University of Adelaide was awarded $18.75 million over seven years to establish an ARC Centre of Excellence in plant cell wall biology at the Waite campus. The state government will contribute $500,000 over three years, commencing in 2011. This has potential benefits to cereals production and also the embryonic biofuels industry. I presume that does not mean biofuels coming from embryos, but the start-up biofuels industry.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No doubt the Greens and perhaps the member for Morphett might have an interest in that. As minister, I have also looked to re-focus this portfolio priority. The state government has determined to wind down the state-owned seed capital investment organisation, Playford Capital. While Playford Capital has been successful over the last 12 years in assisting start-up companies, I have taken the view that it is now time for the state government to exit the market to provide equity and to promote greater private sector investment.

Since Playford Capital's establishment in 1997, South Australia has experienced a change in private support for venture capital with the emergence of the bioscience-focused venture capital fund, SA Life Sciences Advancement Fund, and the Trans Tasman Commercialisation Fund, both of which are privately managed with some limited state government funding support. Playford is a rare exception in the national venture capital area, being state-owned and holding equity in early stage companies.

Being wholly owned by the state government makes Playford Capital less able to secure long-term private investment capital, which is generally designed to support the development of privately based venture capital fund managers in Australia. The state government believes that, in the long run, venture capital activities are best undertaken by private entities operating in the commercial sector with more modest levels of government support without holding direct equity interests in companies.

Playford's investee companies have considerable potential as they work towards commercialising technologies for wine and food processing, energy conservation and medical devices and diagnostics. The state government, Playford staff and the board of directors will work to ensure that there is minimal disruption to investee companies during this period of transition. We will continue to work with existing investee companies over the next few years to further develop their businesses and seek new private sector investors.

Finally, the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology achieved a balanced budget in 2009-10, and this outcome is also reflected in the management of this portfolio. I welcome any questions from members regarding the government's activity in the portfolio area.

The CHAIR: Member for Waite, do you have a statement to make?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. In light of the fairly stunning revelation that you are winding up—I think you used the term 'wind down' but I assume you mean wind up and close up—Playford—I will go to some questions on Playford. I might start—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Fairly stunning; it is fairly stunning.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, it is really, because Playford has been a feature, if you like, of nurturing start-up companies for many years in this state and has managed to secure quite a lot of federal funding. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14.27. How many people work in Playford Capital, how many of them are paid $100,000 or more, and what will happen to those jobs with your decision to wind up Playford?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised that it is about 5.2 FTEs and about three of them—I will have to confirm that, I do not have the exact figures with me—are on salaries of $100,000 plus. Not all of them work full time, so it is 5.2 FTEs; there is a higher number of staff but not all of them work full time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What will happen to those people as a result of the government's decision to wind up Playford?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Playford Capital will be wound down over the next two years. Playford has existing obligations with the commonwealth as part of the IIFF funding which Playford received in August 2009. We are working on transition arrangements with Playford Capital. A number of the staff will have to continue on to manage the wind-down, so we are in negotiations with those staff at the moment, and we are in the process of working out redundancy packages for the other staff. The staff are not employees under the PSM Act, on the whole, so redundancy provisions are being worked out. We are talking about something that will take a couple of years to happen. This is the start of a process.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Just to define what you mean by 'wind-down', I gather that it is the government's goal to see Playford Capital cease within two years; you will wind it up.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not necessarily; we have to work that out. There are two policy objectives that we are trying to achieve. The first is the policy objective of the government owning equity in start-up companies, providing finance to start-up companies, and government withdrawing from being involved in that area. We want to achieve that policy objective. The second policy objective is that it costs just under $1.7 million a year every year in recurrent expenditure to administer it; that is for the overheads to administer it. I am not in any way critical of that, or saying that it is necessarily an excessive amount, because it is just the nature of this sort of business. It is extremely expensive, and I think that $1.7 million could be better invested in other areas of government.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So what immediate actions will occur in respect of Playford, and what actions will occur in year 1 and year 2? Where will we be at the end of the process of winding down?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At the moment we are formulating our wind-down plan. We have obligations to the commonwealth. Those obligations have to be worked out, and we have been in negotiations with the commonwealth to achieve this. A wind down is being worked up (dare I say it) to present to the commonwealth. My preferred time line is that we exit from Playford Capital by 2012 but we are being very careful to make sure that the interests of investee companies are looked after, so 2012 is not necessarily a hard date. However, the wind-down plan is being worked out and will be presented to the commonwealth. This is in the very early stages. I guess what I am announcing today is a statement of intention, and not much more than that.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Will the government be looking to the private sector to take over the roles or functions being performed by Playford? If so, will there be some handover of responsibilities, if you like, from Playford to the private sector as part of the wind-down process?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is still very early days, and there are a number of different options available to us in terms of how the government can withdraw from this area. There are a number of areas open to us in how we achieve that wind-down. The fact is that since Playford was established 12 years ago there have been entrants into the venture capital market in South Australia—at least two new entrants into the venture capital market—so to some extent the private sector has already moved into this area. The rationale for establishing Playford in the first place was that there were no South Australian-based venture capital providers, and that is no longer the case. The answer to your question is that it is already happening, and I expect that, as a result of this decision, there will be more entrants into the private venture capital market in South Australia.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is this, in effect, an outsourcing of the venture capital role? Playford Capital's role was never really venture capital; it was really always seed funding. It was not what I think the industry would characterise as venture capital funding. But is it in effect an outsourcing of those roles to the private sector?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I guess I am not terribly interested in how you label it. The government thinks it is not an area where there is a good policy rationale for us to be involved. The private sector has moved in. It holds equity in start-up companies, so I am not sure how you distinguish between whether it is seed funding or venture capital, but the fact is that Playford Capital is engaged in holding equity in start-up companies. I think that there are better ways in which government can assist start-up companies without the distortions of having a government-owned venture capital provider, not to mention the cost.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: One of the reasons I challenge the government's logic on this is that, characteristically, private venture capital funds are looking for bigger investments to make than those traditionally made by Playford. Playford's loans by and large have been quite small. They have been at the early stage of start-up, and they have been at that point in a company's development where they need something to get them started, the aim being to grow that company to a larger stage where it might be able to prove itself as a target for venture capital funding.

Anything under about $10 million—and you could argue about the figure—anything under a multiple of millions is generally not something most venture capital funds look to make investments in. I just have a bit of a concern that you might leave a hole in the market there, where the venture capital funds (and you have mentioned two new entrants into the market) are not interested because it is not big enough, but Playford is not there to handle the small enough calls for seed funding. I do not know what your comment back on that would be. I am not sure the venture capital funds you have mentioned are going to fit the sort of grant profile that Playford fills.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In answer to your question, I recognise what you are saying, but I think there are better ways that the government can help fill that gap. One of the important ways we do it is through Bio Innovation SA. I think that is a better model for government providing assistance to start-up companies and helping them to make that transition from those early days to when they are up and running and when they are able to attract those big capital investors. There may have been a rationale for it when Playford was established, but I do not think that rationale exists any longer and, as I have indicated, it is a large recurrent expenditure which we are making, and I think we can use those funds in better ways to assist start-up companies.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Could you name the two new entrants into the market you mentioned a moment ago, but could you also list the entities that you think might be in a position to fill the void created by the wind down?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not going to engage in speculation and try to name companies. You are talking about something which is two years away, and all I am saying is that I am confident that there will be new entrants to the market who will be able to fill the gap. In terms of the two new entrants that I mentioned in my introductory statement, Trans Tasman Commercialisation Fund and SA Life Sciences Advancement Fund are the two entrants to the market doing early-stage investment in early-stage companies that have established in South Australia since Playford Capital was established.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Same budget line: how much of the money invested by Playford Capital was sourced from the commonwealth?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Could you repeat that, please?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: How much of the money invested by Playford Capital—say, in financial year 2009-10—was sourced from the commonwealth, and how much was sourced from the state government? How much was from the private sector in the form of co-funding?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In relation to the source of the current investments that Playford has, of its total investments of $52,028,413, approximately $6.8 million is a commitment from Playford Capital; just over $2.7 million is from the commonwealth, under the IIFF; and $28.7 million is private co-investment. If you add up those figures, apparently it does not reach $52 million; someone needs to correct their calculations. Anyway, the total of $6.8 million, $2.7 million and $28.7 million is the total figure of investment, and that is the breakdown between money committed from Playford, money from the IIFF and money from private co-investments.

In November last year, Playford secured $7.45 million as a one-off figure from the commonwealth Innovation Investment Follow-on Fund (IIFF), which I have mentioned, for investment in a select group of Playford investee companies; and of that $7.45 million, $2.7 million has been invested, and the rest Playford has not drawn down on.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me just seize on that point. Playford has been able to put together $7.45 million from the commonwealth's IIFF fund because it is a vehicle of government. If we wind down Playford and take Playford away, who will go to bat for South Australia in terms of winning funding from the commonwealth for innovation—because it is there, from funds such as the federal government's capital Innovation Investment Follow-on Fund?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: On the contrary, far from Playford being successful in getting this money because it is a subsidiary of government, quite the opposite happened: Playford got it despite the fact and a special exemption had to be created to enable Playford to bid for the money because, normally, the money is not available to government-owned entities.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: From that particular fund?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: From that particular fund. This is an example of what I am talking about in relation to the fact that government ownership restricts Playford. It means that there are funds it could be bidding for that it cannot because of its ownership by government. There are all sorts of requirements on Playford by virtue of its being owned by government that would not apply to a normal venture capital firm.

If I can return to completing the answer, the federal government had to make an exemption to Playford to enable it to bid for the IIFF funding; normally Playford would have been ineligible for that funding by virtue of its being owned by government. I will go back to my original point in terms of attracting these funds. There are existing privately-owned venture capital companies that I think will be able to be more successful in bidding for these sorts of opportunities from the commonwealth than there were in the past. It may well have been that, if Playford had not been successful, one of the privately-owned venture capital firms would be successful in attracting this money.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I take from your answer that you are assuring the committee that commonwealth funds will be there for the private sector to apply for. They will not need Playford Capital, necessarily.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The IIFF is rather unique. It is a one-off and I do not know whether the commonwealth government has any intention of making any more funds available for it. I would be surprised. The point is that the venture capital market is a peculiar market and one that I am finding is incredibly complicated and delicate, and I just do not think that government-owned entities are particularly suited to being players in it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Are we aware of any private venture capital funds in South Australia that have successfully applied for grant moneys from this particular fund or any other major commonwealth fund?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Do you mean commonwealth funds?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes. Are we aware of any other private venture capital funds of the type that might replace Playford that have successfully applied for funds?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, and that is my point.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My point would be that, if you have an entity like Playford that has connections to government and is familiar with the processes and can regularly make applications on each recurrent year for funding and then use that funding to distribute, is that not an advantage, rather than leaving it to individual companies or funds to try to navigate their way through those processes?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The answer is no. As I indicated earlier, on the contrary, it is a disadvantage. Playford Capital being owned by government is a disadvantage to its operations. A perfect example is its application for IIFF funding, where special exemptions had to be made, I think, presumably at a ministerial level. So, it is a very high level—ministerial level. Exemptions had to be made to enable it to bid for money from that fund. If it were a privately owned entity—if there was no government equity—that would not need to have happened.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, I take your point.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: When you are talking about venture capital firms, you are not talking about the local tennis club or the local bowling club that might need some help in filling out a few forms. These people are highly professional, highly experienced people. This is an area in which people all know each other very well. They do not need assistance from government, and they certainly do not need to be owned by government in order to negotiate applications for government grants.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am just trying to ask whether we know, if they are that clever, whether they have been successful in attracting the funding from the commonwealth, and we are not quite sure whether we are able to name any. I am just making the point.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not in a position to say whether or not they applied; I do not know. It is a normal commercial process.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I do not recall having seen this recommendation in the Sustainable Budget Commission's report, but I may be wrong. Was it a recommendation of the SBC to wind Playford up?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it was an initiative of mine as the minister.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Now that you have informed the committee that it was your decision, that leads me to the question as to whether or not the government—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sorry; it is a decision of mine. It has not formally been to cabinet. Cabinet has been informed of my intentions to go this way.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That leads me to my next question. Did you commission consultants or an agency of some kind, or some entity, to do an independent report on Playford, and was the winding up of Playford recommended? What was recommended? What were the options?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, the previous minister engaged Dr Leanna Reed, who is a member of the Economic Development Board and is highly involved in this sector. She owns a biotech company—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, I know.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You know Leanna? She conducted a review. Shortly after I became minister, she presented her report to me. There are four options, and this was one of them.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Are you able to tell us what the other three options were?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will take advice on whether or not that is something I can release. This is a commercially sensitive area, and so, out of an abundance of caution, I will not go into it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, would one of the options have been to sell Playford, if you like, as a going concern in some form? I am not sure that would have been possible, but would that have been one of the options that government considered? Rather than wind it down and then hope that the private sector would pick up the slack, would one of the options have been to keep, essentially, the intellectual property of Playford intact but allow the private sector to buy out the government's interest in some form? There would be quite a lot of goodwill there, in the way of connections, contacts and arrangements, and a lot of experience.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Out of an abundance of caution, I will not go into what was in the recommendations, other than to say that there were four options for me to choose from. The option that I chose was the option that I believed would cause the least disruption, bearing in mind that Playford Capital has ongoing obligations to the commonwealth under its IIFF funding and keeping in mind the welfare of the investee companies and causing the least disruption to investee companies.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What savings does the government hope to realise over the four years of the FIDET from this measure, and why was this not identified in the budget, particularly in Budget Paper 6, as a savings initiative from this department?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: What savings will be achieved has to be worked out and will be part of the wind-down process, but I can tell you there is a recurrent cost of $1.7 million every year, so we will be looking at making savings on that figure. How quickly we achieve savings and what the savings are will be subject to the wind-down

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I was just curious as to why it did not—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Why it was not revealed in the budget papers? Because of the commercial sensitivity surrounding it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Was it a decision made as part of the budget process, or has this been a footnote to the budget; that is, was it made after the budget had gone through cabinet? It could have been included in the budget papers in some other form to protect confidentiality.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My decision to go down this path of winding them down was not a decision that was made in the context of the budget. It was a decision that I made arising from the Reed review and our policy decision and my desire to make clear what the government's intentions were in regard to Playford Capital or to set a clear direction for Playford Capital. The numbers, the savings, have been factored into the budget papers, though.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: They have been factored in, so the savings were included in the budget papers, but this particular measure was not identified in the budget?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is right. I think that is a fair summation.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, how was this included in the budget papers, if it was not openly disclosed as a saving measure?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The savings are nominal because they are subject to the wind-down plan and they might not be achieved. Whether or not the savings are achieved, and the degree of savings, depends on the results once we finalise the wind-down plan.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So your budget figures are intact in the sense that they take account of this saving? This saving is recognised in the budget papers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, that is right, but they are nominal figures and could change very easily. They are subject to the wind-down process.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am intrigued that when you look at Budget Paper 6 for this portfolio, pages 152 and 153, the Bio Innovation cuts are mentioned. There would have been an opportunity to include this saving measure in there, even if it did not say Playford Capital—it could have been described as operational efficiencies, restructuring or whatever. It concerns me that we can have a saving of such a significant sum, $1.7 million a year or even a nominal rate—it is millions of dollars—without the proper process, that is, without it having been listed in some form.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is a saving in the out years to begin with, so it will not be achieved this financial year. It is a saving going into the out years. While in the context of my department $1.7 million is not a trifle, in terms of the budget outcomes it is relatively small money. In a budget of billions of dollars, $1.7 million is not a huge amount and does not have a huge impact on the budget result.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I take your point, but the savings for Bio Innovation SA are also in the out years, and they are listed.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The difference is that there are particular commercial sensitivities around Playford Capital. As part of this process I needed to speak to the board of Playford Capital and to the investee companies. It was not appropriate for this decision to be made in the context of the budget papers before I had had an opportunity to do those two things. I am informed that the figures are included in the headroom of the budget.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Whenever one hears in estimates that a significant sum has been saved that is not actually mentioned, it casts some doubt over the rest of the budget because you wonder why other cuts are not headlined in Budget Paper 6 and are buried in the headroom figures or somewhere else.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: For a number of reasons it would not be appropriate to include it in the budget papers as a specific item. The figures are nominal and subject to the wind-down process and there are commercial sensitivities around them.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I understand all that, but there are some stakeholders, for example, people whose companies are beholden to Playford Capital because Playford has a stake in them, who will be a little disappointed that it has taken today's session of budget estimates to have this information publicly and openly revealed when it could have been in the budget papers or announced by the government earlier.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I met with the companies on 27 September; they were informed of the government's intentions as soon as possible.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: A couple of them have spoken to me, too.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have no doubt they have.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That is all on Playford.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is not an easy decision to have made and I acknowledge the decision will have a potential impact on a number of investee companies. It is a very delicate area, an area in which we have obligations to the commonwealth that have to be met, but overriding for me is the number of policy priorities, a question of whether this is a good area for a government to be involved. I make no bones about being an economic rationalist, and I do not think this is a good area for the government to be involved.

In terms of the recurrent expenditure, I think there are better ways we can help start-up companies with that $1.7 million, without necessarily holding equity in them. I think private venture capital companies operate better, more efficiently and more flexibly without being burdened by government ownership.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I suppose I am curious as to whether or not the government could have turned this into an income measure, if there had been a way to sell or enter into an arrangement with another venture capital fund to buy the goodwill and a lot of what has been created with Playford, so that Playford goes on to bigger and better things, but without government ownership, but that gets back to the question I have already asked, which you have answered.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I had four options. The option I decided on was the one which I thought was in the best interests of the investee companies and would cause the least disruption to the investee companies.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, fair enough. You have answered that question and I thank you for it. Will any legislation be required in order to make this happen?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there are regulations which will expire next year—but, no.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: There is no act that deals with Playford?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there are regulations. They are established under the Public Corporations Act. We should say it is the Playford Centre, and then Playford Capital is a subsidiary of the Playford Centre. The Playford Centre is established under the Public Corporations Act, but there will not be any need to change legislation.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Okay. The Venture Capital Board was formerly, I think, under the management of this portfolio and has now been transformed. Could you just update the committee on what has happened with the former Venture Capital Board's enterprises, investments and whatever funds remain in that budget line?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The Venture Capital Board has always been under DTED. It has never been under this portfolio. It is now part of Innovate SA.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Right. Perhaps I should ask this question of the other minister, but—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I note your point. It was under the Treasurer at one stage, then it moved to the current minister in the restructure, with industry and trade, rather than stay with Treasury. I thought it was under Treasury, actually.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would have been when the Treasurer was minister for trade.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Okay. Well then, I suppose that raises the question about whether this new-found reluctance by the government to get involved in anything to do with venture capital is something within your portfolio or a broader government strategy. If it is a broader government strategy not to get involved in VC-type activities—I note Innovate SA is up for the cut—will DTED not be continuing with any venture capital initiatives or will DTED no longer be taking stakes in companies, as they have through various funds that they operate?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Just to correct what the member for Waite said, this decision is arising from a policy of the government not to get involved in equity in venture capital firms.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Okay.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is what is unique about Playford Capital. It is what differentiates it from other ways that government might assist start-up companies. That is the key distinction. As to other areas outside of my portfolio, I would need to take them on notice. If you want to know what the government's intentions are, I have some information here, if you want to hear it. It is outside of my portfolio.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That is all right. I am always happy to have information outside a minister's—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: From 1 July 2009, the operations of the former Venture Capital SA transitioned to the SA Centre for Innovation, which is now known as Innovate SA. In addition to matching companies with funding requirements to sources of investment in equity capital, Venture Capital SA also conducts seminars and investment ready courses and a number of educational programs. So, what it does is completely different; Playford does some of the things that they do but what distinguishes them is that Playford Capital holds equity in these companies.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I move onto Bio Innovation SA, sub-program 2.3 in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14.26. What staff cuts and program cuts will be required at Bio Innovation SA, and what cuts to programs that it administers, as a consequence of the government's decision to cut $4.6 million over four years outlined in Budget Paper 6?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of opening my remarks about Bio Innovation SA, in any sector where the government is involved to get that sector established, as it has done with Bio Innovation, I do not think that anyone would expect that the government's involvement and assistance to that sector would remain in perpetuity. Once the sector had matured then the government would, in an orderly way, phase out its involvement and look to new sectors where government might assist it to get started.

So, in terms of reducing government funding to Bio Innovation SA, as the sector matures and is able to stand up on its own, and I am confident that it is getting to that point, government will reassess its assistance to the sector. It is a very important sector to the state economy, and Bio Innovation SA has done tremendous work in helping to establish that sector.

In terms of the staff FTE reductions, I am advised that the reductions are from 16 FTEs to 12 FTEs, and that is a reduction that has already been achieved. The savings targets which have been identified are: a reduction in administrative costs; a reduction in staff (as I have already mentioned); a reduction in grants to companies; increased revenue for the incubator building; moving towards a break-even operation, not including the lease obligations that it has to the Land Management Corporation; a reduction in lease payments to the Land Management Corporation as a result of lower construction costs for the Bio SA incubator; and a deferral of plans to construct incubator stage 2.

There is also a land sale. There are two land parcels, consisting of two hectares in total, that are currently on the market, and I will not mention the figure. At the moment there are no current buyers due to zoning restrictions. So, that process is happening.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: A couple of things you mentioned there: grant funding. What grant funding was extant before the cuts and what grant funding will be available after the cuts—that is, the total amount of the grants—and how many grants were we offering before the cuts? So, both the quantum of the grants and the number of the grants.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I can go through what the grants are at the moment. Which grants will be reduced will be up to the board; it will make the decisions about which grants will be reduced or wound back as part of this saving. The grants awarded for 2009-10 were:

$1.173 million in grants to industry and academia through the Commercial Development Initiative (CDI), Business Development Initiative (BDI), Entrepreneur in Residence (EiR), Research Infrastructure Fund (RIF), and Commercial Initiative fund (CI) grants;

$1.781 million operating grant to the Australian Centre for Plant Functioning Genomics;

$191,000 operating grant to Terra Rossa Capital; and

$400,000 in further Adelaide Integrated Bioscience Laboratories assistance.

That is a total $3.7 million in grants and industry assistance in 2009-10. Dr Michaelis has advised me that it will go down to $3.3 million and then a further reduction down to $3 million.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: How will the cuts and program changes be implemented over the four years of the estimates period, noting that the most savage of the cuts occur in 2011-12 and 2012-13? You have mentioned that the board will make certain decisions now that the budget has been promulgated; what process will now unfold—given that most of the cuts are in 2011-12 and 2012-13—for implementing the cuts to programs and activities? What process will be followed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Dr Michaelis, as the chief executive, will put a budget to the board of Bio Innovation SA, which will then approve it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I gather that fewer companies will be affected next year, but there will be quite a lot of companies and a lot of programs affected in years 3 and 4, based on the cuts.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of the forward estimates?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Because the cuts are back-ended.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not entirely back-ended; the reduction goes down to 891,000 in 2013-14 but, as you said, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are when we expect those savings to be made.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I suppose where I was heading was are the smaller grants to companies going to be frontloaded or back-end loaded? In other words, you mentioned some other big-ticket items like not continuing with stage 2 of Thebarton and a few other major initiatives. I wondered whether they were going to occur first or last, but it sounds like there is no decision on that at this stage.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Basically, that would be up to the board. Presumably the board will decide according to the budget put to them by Dr Michaelis. What has happened is that there has been maturity in the sector. Bio Innovation SA has a close relationship with Terra Rossa Capital, so Bio Innovation has got these companies up to a stage where they will be attractive for investment from the private sector.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Could you tell the committee how many companies have been assisted by Bio Innovation, say, in the last 12 months? How many jobs have been created, and how much revenue and exports generated? How much R&D expenditure has been amassed as a result of Bio Innovation's work? I just want to get that on the record.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Over the nine-year period until June 2010, Bio Innovation SA has facilitated in doubling the number of bioscience companies in South Australia to more than 100 companies. Assistance with company growth has resulted in the increase in new FTEs from 800 in 2001 to 1,700 in 2008. Annual growth in the past two years is 250 new FTEs in bioscience companies per year. Bioscience companies' combined trading income was $300 million in 2008—almost three times the amount reported in 2001-02—50 per cent of this as exports. An external review by Access Economics confirmed that Bio SA is a good investment for South Australia. The benefit cost ratio of nearly four in present net value terms equates to a contribution of about $154 million over nine years.

I should point out that this decision that we have made about funding to Bio Innovation SA is not made because we do not think Bio Innovation SA is working. The government acknowledges the great work Bio Innovation SA has done, and that overwhelmingly it has been a success story. The decision is based on the fact that the sector has matured and there is less need for government assistance to it. I do not think anyone would think that any sector of the economy that the government identifies as having potential should be supported by government in perpetuity. Eventually the government needs, in an orderly way, to withdraw its support for a sector as it is able to stand on its own two feet.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I take that, but it does sound a bit odd, minister, hearing what good outcomes the people of South Australia have received for their investment in Bio Innovation. Given the glowing report by Access Economics you have mentioned—and earlier when we were talking about Playford you mentioned that Bio Innovation was a better model than Playford—are we strangling the golden goose? I suppose that is my question. In particular, how does our level of investment after these cuts compare with the level of investment being made by other state governments in their bio innovation industries?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: For example, in Queensland and WA? How is our work rate and our investment rate standing up alongside our competitors'? Some of these companies that are coming to us will also be able to go to other states.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I have said repeatedly, this decision has been made as this sector has matured. Increasingly, this sector has been so successful that it does not require the level of government assistance that it did early on. So, in no way is this decision an adverse reflection upon the good work Bio Innovation SA does; quite the contrary, we are recognising that Bio Innovation SA has done its job well. The sector has matured, and for any sector to be maintained in perpetuity on government assistance would just not make sense. So, as the sector has matured, the government has been winding down its assistance. It does not help the industry for it to be forever reliant on government assistance.

What we are seeing is the private sector moving in. Terra Rossa Capital has a fund of $35 million for investment in this sector. So, we expect companies such as Terra Rossa to move in and take over from government, and that is what we have always wanted. I do not think the previous government would have intended, when it made the decision to establish Bio Innovation SA, that forever and a day, this sector would need government assistance.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: As I was minister for this area in the former government, I can tell you that we intended to take it to a new level. Minister, can you provide further information in respect of the two hectares of land you identified for sale? Where is that land and when will it be sold?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I might hand that over to Dr Michaelis.

Dr MICHAELIS: Where?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The minister mentioned two hectares or two parcels of land that were to be sold as part of the savings to be achieved. Did I hear that correctly, minister? Is that at Thebarton?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will ask Dr Michaelis to give you the detail.

Dr MICHAELIS: Our intention with Thebarton was always to remediate the site, build the business incubator as the hub of that new development of 100,000 hectares and, once the parcels of land were fully developed and cleaned up—it is an old tannery—we would put it on the market for sale. Two blocks of 10,000 square metres each are currently on the market for sale. The proceeds from the sale, when it happens, will go back to Treasury and Finance because it financed the purchase of the land in the first place.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is at Thebarton?

Dr MICHAELIS: It is at Thebarton.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: And it is part of the bioscience precinct?

Dr MICHAELIS: That is correct.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: We have refurbished the land, have we, and now we are putting it on the market?

Dr MICHAELIS: That is correct.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is there a caveat that it will be the remaining part of the bioscience precinct and that bioscience companies will move there? For example, could that land be bought by ABC Canneries or DGD Crash Repairs or for a warehouse or a Bunnings' site? Is it going to remain part of the precinct, or is it up for sale and whoever comes along can have it?

Dr MICHAELIS: It is amazing to see how much biotechnology is actually employed these days in canneries, and we should not underestimate that, but there are restrictions on it. The land is on a community title, and the community title stipulates that it is for sale for high technology companies. So, we are trying to preserve the area of Thebarton, which already has 90 high-tech companies co-located there. We would like the land not to be sold to a non-related industry.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: We would like that, but are we going to require that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is zoned for that purpose, and there is no intention to change the zoning. So, if it was to be sold or put to another purpose, it would require rezoning. It is zoned for that purpose, and that is what the intention is.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is zoned for bioscience.

Dr MICHAELIS: It is a very broad definition of bioscience.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that zoning, rubbish recycling, metal recycling and bottle recycling are all in there as well. Are they going to go, are they? I confess that my daughter owns a small property there, and the owners of those industries keep telling her that they will be there forever. So I just wonder where you are going?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Dr Michaelis.

Dr MICHAELIS: Over probably the last 10 years, we have seen quite a change in Thebarton. As you know, it is an old industrial site with rundown buildings and very traditional industries which occasionally are struggling. The mere fact that we have constantly pushed more high-tech companies, bioscience companies, into that sector has resulted in more and more supply companies that are supplying these other 90 companies moving into the sector. Private developers are now moving into the area, purchasing blocks of land, demolishing old buildings, and building up, providing rental accommodation for supply companies.

We find that, because there is such a shortage of office and laboratory space in the bioscience industry, the private sector is not providing office space in Thebarton for biotech companies. We are seeing a real transition from an old industrial site to the moving in of modern, advanced and knowledge-based industries and, with it, the location decisions of some scientists and business leaders to move into the surrounding areas—into the western suburbs—which has a flow-on effect on housing development. It is one example in Australia (and Thebarton is very unique) where we can see, through a government initiative and long-term commitment to changing an environment, a change in the industry landscape and a change in the socioeconomic framework in the western suburbs.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think the only business that we all would like to see go very quickly is the Finks Motorcycle Clubroom, which is there as well.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They are neighbours, I think, are they not?

Dr McFETRIDGE: They are.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Just staying with Thebarton Bioscience, you mentioned that the stage 2 development would not proceed. Did I hear that correctly? Can you elaborate on that for the committee? What savings will be achieved by that not proceeding, and what does 'not proceeding mean'?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think deferred sine die is probably the term.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Just remind the committee what was stage 2, how much was the investment for stage 2, when was it to have been completed, and what does the minister mean by 'deferred'?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There was never funding to build it in the first place.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: There was a costed figure, though, was there not?

Dr MICHAELIS: It was about $35 million.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Was about half of that to be government money and half private, from memory? I think that came through Public Works.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not think it would have gone to Public Works.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have seen something on this in Public Works. Some of it has come through Public Works.

Dr MICHAELIS: I think it may have gone to Public Works as part of the development application.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Was about half of that state government money and half private? Is that right?

Dr MICHAELIS: With the financial modelling for a project like this of $35 million capital cost, in order to get a private developer to get core funded, the government would have to pay over a 20-year period about $20 million. So, on average, that is about $1 million a year to attract core development money. The problem with these buildings is they are, per square metre, very expensive to build—more expensive than an office building because they are highly flexible and have to accommodate a number of tenants. There are about 800 or so of these buildings world wide. Our incubator building in Thebarton is currently the only one of its type in Australia, and more than 90 per cent of them are government core financed in one way or another because they usually cannot operate on a commercial basis.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I understand then that, of the $35 million, $20 million would have been government money over 20 years and $15 million would have been co-funding from the private sector. What the government has decided to do, if I am hearing correctly, is not invest that $20 million but defer that indefinitely and that will not go ahead. Is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The saving achieved by Bio Innovation SA is not having to work up the project. If they do not have to work up the project they are making a saving by not having to do that activity, but the government never committed any funding for this project.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is the land within the two hectares that is for sale, land that was going to be used for stage 2; or is the land for stage 2 still going to be retained?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The land for stage 2 will not be retained?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No—in relation to your original question about whether stage 2 was part of the land that is going to be sold, the answer is no.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, is the land that has been identified for stage 2 to be retained by the government?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Retained by Bio Innovation SA at this point.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, it will still be there if—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If some future government wants to do it. I think, having got up a $125 million project in this budget for a new VET training facility at Tonsley, I would be trying my luck with the Treasurer to make an approach about this.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I guess the key point is that the government has no immediate plans to sell that land?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Does it have any other plans to sell that land later on—not immediate plans?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Well, it is not part of the savings targets that have been identified in the budget.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Can you update the committee on how much has been spent at Thebarton Bioscience Precinct to date, whether all the space that has been built is rented, or sold and let, or whether any of it is vacant?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will ask Dr Michaelis to respond. He does not have all the information to hand but he will answer with as much information as he has. The rest we can take on notice.

Dr MICHAELIS: Some of these we have to take on notice, but high level figures only. From memory, the land was purchased—the entire new Thebarton site of about 49,000 square metres—for about $6 million and the business incubator building, as it stands now, cost about $12.1 million. That is roughly—high level figures only. The building was fully leased prior to completion and there is currently no vacant space in the building. All the space has been leased.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That leads to my next question. I am hearing from industry that there are biotech companies ready to move into a stage 2, if it were to be built, and that the demand is there, but without the building they cannot move. I am just wondering if that is correct, or if that is the government's understanding, that there is demand for stage 2, and that it could be viably let?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have no way of knowing. Unless it was built we would not know.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, right. I move on to the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG). I think you mentioned a figure in your earlier comment to the committee, but what financial investment has Bio Innovation made in the plant functional genomics centre to date? When I say 'investments', what moneys has it provided to the plant functional genomics centre to date? What money did it provide in the last financial year, and what cuts are now going to be made to funding support for the ACPFG over the estimates period in each year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The important thing to say is that Bio Innovation administers the state government's interests in the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. Since 2001-02, the government has provided two rounds of funding to the ACPFG to support the establishment and growth of the facility. In the current funding round (ACPFG II) from 2008, the contribution is $8.75 million over five years, and that is indexed to CPI, so it is not affected by this budget in any way.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, I am hearing $8.75 million—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Over five years.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —over five years from this financial year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: From 2008.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Which would take it through until?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 2012.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So there is funding of $8.75 million there from Bio Innovation up to 2012.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it is from the government; it is not from Bio Innovation. It is an investment from the department. Sorry, it appears in Bio Innovation SA's budget, but it is a government investment, it is administered on the government's behalf by Bio Innovation SA.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, it is government money, through the department, administered by Bio Innovation SA, $8.75 million over five years, and that comes to an end in 2012?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: And that is the current agreement?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Right. Budget Paper 6, of course, goes beyond 2012 to 2013-14, so I am asking what is the government's intention for the next round of funding for the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, and is there an assurance that at least this current funding level plus inflation, or whatever, will be maintained? What is in the budget for 2012-13 and 2013-14?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is a decision that we will have to make at the time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: There is no commitment from government at this stage?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The commitment is to 2012.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That is until June 2012. In the last two years of the estimates period, there are no moneys committed at present for the plant functional genomics centre, is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is correct.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: When will the decision time line occur for that commitment to be necessary for the plant functional genomics centre to have an ongoing life?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It will be made as part of the 2012 budget process.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is it correct that the plant functional genomics centre will not necessarily know until May 2012 whether it will have funding beyond June 2012?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is important to note that state government funding of the centre is only a component of the total funding that it gets. It has received $36.6 million from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and a further in-kind contribution of $45.6 million. That is a combined contribution of $82 million over the five years to support the centre.

As we said, the state government's contribution is $8.75 million. We will make a decision as part of the 2012 budget process. We will make a decision accordingly.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I remember when this funding application was taken to cabinet in 2001. The contribution by the other parties very much hinged on the state government's contribution. In other words, if we did not continue to provide funding they would not, either. It seems to me from the minister's answers that we may be hanging the plant functional genomics centre out a little; or, in other words, creating a bit of uncertainty.

If it has not got a firm financial commitment from the state government, the other parties providing funding may well say, 'Well, we're not sure whether the state government is committed to this, so maybe we should not put money aside, either.' Is that a risk?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We will take that into account at the time. This is not unusual in my portfolio. There are plenty of things the state government puts money into which helps leverage money from other sources, whether that be from the private sector or from the commonwealth. This is not unusual.

It is funding for five years. Again, that is not an unusual thing. There are plenty of areas of government where government agrees to fund something for a period of time; and, at the end of that period of time, government has to make a decision about what it will do—whether it will continue to fund that in the future. It is just good financial management to put in time lines and things, and it gives certainty to organisations in receipt of government funding about what they are going to get over a period of time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I suppose the question that concerns me, though, is that we have recently created the Research Institute at the Waite. We have recreated, if you like, the centre of excellence there. I think that the government is a partner there with the university and with various other parties.

We are promoting the Waite, and it would seem to me that the government ought to have a long-term strategic vision for the Waite, including the plant functional genomics centre, that might require it to step out of the normal budgetary process and say, 'Look, if we want to continue this, we had better be prepared to make a long-term commitment here or risk losing things.'

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It just does not work that way because, for one thing, governments change. A commitment from this government to fund something for anything longer than five years is almost meaningless because governments change. A future Liberal government might decide that this is not a priority into which it wants to put money.

A government commitment for anything longer than a period of about five years, I do not think, is a commitment really worth making because you are trying to hold future governments to a promise of a particular place in time. This is not an unusual arrangement. There are lots of areas in government where we agree to fund something for a period of time. It is just part of good financial management.

I have no reason to believe that this centre is in any danger because of the arrangements we have to fund it at the moment. As 2012 draws closer, we will be in discussions and we will make a decision about the funding of it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I take the minister's point, but the government has been prepared to make commitments right into the long term down at Techport and in the defence area, where we have made commitments to the shipbuilding projects and the building of infrastructure down there. We have made commitments to other infrastructure, such as roads and the electrification of rail. We have made a number of commitments in the budget that will go beyond—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You are talking about building infrastructure; that is different from this.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It depends on how you look at the plant functional genomics centre. You could very well look at that, and at what has been created up at the Waite, as intellectual infrastructure. It is a building, after all. It is the building mainly that is the infrastructure around which the centre—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, but it is not building infrastructure in the way of electrifying a railway, building a tramline or building infrastructure down at Techport. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Or the maritime training skills centre you announced in the parliament recently at Techport, which is a long-term commitment we have made. I make the point that—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As 2012 becomes clear, the government will have discussions and we will decide what our commitment will be.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I will not labour the point.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of the commonwealth funding through the ARC, that process will probably start next year, so there will be discussions with the government on part of that process.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The danger I see is that a cashed-up state government like WA or Queensland might well say, 'Oh, okay, what are you hanging out for—$8.75 million over five years? Good; we will put $12 million down over five years and build you a new centre', and then go to the other parties and say, 'Why don't you move the plant functional genomics centre to Perth or to south-east Queensland?', which is what has been going on. We could lose the lot because the commonwealth money and the other money will go wherever the seed state money is. If there is even a sniff that the state government is no longer interested in such a centre of excellence, would the minister agree that there is a risk that could happen if we do not flag our commitment early?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would be rather hard to move it, given the nature of the facility and the fact that it is embedded in Waite. No, I do not think there is a great danger of it moving interstate. The $30 million plant accelerator at the University of Adelaide's Waite campus is just next door and critical to the operation of the centre. It would be stretching the point to suggest such because we have a five-year agreement to 2012. We will make a decision at the appropriate time about future funding.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Moving on, same budget line and page number: you mentioned that $191,000 would be paid to Terra Rossa Capital in the current financial year, I gather.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It was the last financial year. It is about the same every year.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is that the complete picture of expenditure by government on Terra Rossa Capital? Are there any other moneys that flow from government in some way to or from Terra Rossa, or is that the complete picture?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not to my knowledge.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Are Terra Rossa Capital and Bio Innovation SA joined at the hip? I notice the Sustainable Budget Commission recommended that Bio Innovation be closed, and I commend the minister, to the extent of having been through the bilaterals process, for going in to bat to save it. If Bio Innovation were to collapse or close, would Terra Rossa Capital go with it? Alternatively, is Terra Rossa Capital a free agent that could find itself in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth, given the right advances from another state government?

What is the relationship between Terra Rossa Capital and Bio Innovation SA? Is Terra Rossa Capital a completely free agent which is completely independent of government and which could pick itself up and move to Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane at a whim, or is there some other connection?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Bio Innovation SA and Terra Rossa are two separate entities. Terra Rossa sources its capital from the MTAA, the MTAA superannuation fund.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The national body, yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The agreement with the MTAA is that, if state government funding or support for Bio Innovation SA is reduced below a particular level, then MTAA reserves its right to withhold additional investment funding, but that has not happened.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, but were it to occur, I suppose MTAA would always be open to an advance from somewhere else. Anyway, I think that answers my question. I move off Bio Innovation SA now—and I thank the staff if they are not staying—and I will go to more general issues about the department's functions in respect of science and technology. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14.3. Of the 3,402 FTEs in the department identified in the budget, can you tell me how many are engaged in the area of science and technology? I am looking at your organisation chart. The total number of people—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of the total in the department, how many in science and technology?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes; how many are engaged in duties that fall within the science and technology budget line. It is a bit hard to identify from your organisation chart.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 31.4 FTEs as at 30 June 2009 and 30.63 FTEs as at 30 June 2010. It is rather remarkable that we are spending two hours examining such a small agency.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: But this is a very important agency, minister.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: I invite members of the committee to consider how we might shorten it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Never let an opportunity go by, Mr Chair. Exactly where are these FTEs dedicated to science and technology placed in the organisation chart, because I note, looking at your department's organisation chart, it does not seem to be streamlined into the TAFE responsibility and the science and technology responsibility. Where are these people placed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They are in the science and information economy directorate and they report in under the Deputy CE, Dr Craig Fowler.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What is the title of the deputy CE?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Director, Science and Information Economy. It is on page 22 of the annual report. Is that what you are looking at?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What is the full title of the deputy CE, because there are a number of deputy CEs.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There are two deputy CEs. If you are looking at the organisation chart, you will see 'Deputy Chief Executive, Planning, Policy and Innovation' (the gentleman to my right) and then you will see there 'Director, Science and Information Economy'.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, all those people work in the Directorate of Science and Information Economy?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: About 31-odd people are all in that.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: There are none filtered around elsewhere?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That answers that. Of those who work in this area, how many are paid in excess of $100,000?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: One. About one; I will check that. I will double-check but I think it is one—the director.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I think you mentioned there were no plans to cut numbers in this area?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, there are not. It is pretty hard to make savings with an FTE of 31.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You could make a 10 per cent cut.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Well, perhaps.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It would look good on paper. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14.3, government ICT management. Is there an overlap or duplication with other departments in responsibility and staffing levels for science, technology and information economy. For example, what relationship do your people have with DTEI in the area of government ICT outsourcing and the activities of the Chief Information Officer, because I can see there is a connection. To what degree is there a connection and what is the degree of overlap? Is there any duplication?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is a close working relationship and collaboration. The Chief Information Officer comes under the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, under minister Conlon. I do not think it would be correct to say that there is any overlap, but there is certainly close collaboration between the two, particularly with regard to Dr Genevieve Bell's recommendations and the implementation of that.

There is a high-level government working group, the Digital Economy Strategy Group, comprising chief executives from relevant departments, which is constituted with the purpose of providing strategic input and direction, to position the state to maximise opportunities in the digital economy. Cabinet has approved the formation of an NBN task force to lead and coordinate across government interaction with NBNCo. The NBN task force reports to the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the Minister for Infrastructure. They collaborate but there is no duplication or overlap between the two.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am reading pages 91 to 93 of the Sustainable Budget Commission's second report, August 2010, volume 1. Does the minister agree that government ICT operations need to be made more efficient and that new service delivery models are needed including opportunities to centralise in government the external provision of services? What the Sustainable Budget Commission says, in effect, is there is a lot of overlap and duplication, and what needs to happen is that it all needs to be centralised, and possibly, provided externally. Do you have a view on that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is not a matter I have any view on. It is not something that is the responsibility of my department. It is a question you would have to ask minister Conlon.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I had pencilled that it in as your answer, actually.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: So, it was a Dorothy Dixer?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I thought you would say that because that is part of the problem. You know, there are a number of ministers with a finger in the ICT pie.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The demarcation is pretty clear. The responsibilities I have are quite different and the sorts of things we do are quite different. It is an important collaboration but that is about it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I do not necessarily concur and I will explain why. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14, let me just ask you why it is that you have produced so many strategic planning documents? As I understand the budget, your job is to set the direction and, in many ways, set the future vision for ICT services.

For example, I see you have produced a document called STI¹⁰. There is a whole of government research forum mentioned in your budget and a whole of government STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills strategy. You have launched a strategy called the Information Economy Agenda 2009-2014 and obtained a Thinker in Residence report called Staying Connected: Exploring South Australia's Digital Futures. Are there any other strategic planning documents? Is that a complete list? Which one is the prime source of strategic guidance that is supposed to be guiding the whole-of-government movement forward on ICT? Is there a single document?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The answer to your question is no; that is the complete list, as I understand it. What this agency does, to do with IT, are broader policy issues that cover the entire state in the development of ICT across the whole state. The Chief Information Officer has very particular responsibilities for ICT within the government, so there is quite a clear demarcation between what the Chief Information Officer does and what my agency does. So, all of the plans you are talking about relate to broader policy implications or issues in regard to information technology.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It sounds like DTEI might benefit from sitting down with some of your people and working together on future directions, because—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is why there is there is close collaboration between the two. They do not operate in silos, but there is a clear understanding about where the Chief Information Officer's responsibilities are and where my department's responsibilities are.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I note the Auditor-General has produced special reports on this whole question of the future of our ICT strategy. I know you have done a lot of work on it, and DTEI has done a lot of work on it, but then the Sustainable Budget Commission identifies it as a major area for cuts, not many of which have been implemented. I make that observation, but I realise it is an observation and not a question, so I am happy to move on.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Fair enough.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14.25, broadband blackspots. How many broadband blackspots still exist in SA, where are they and what is the government doing to expand broadband services to cover the gaps in metropolitan and regional SA?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Dr Craig Fowler knows this issue back to front.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Inside out and back to front.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Inside out. I am going to give him his moment to shine.

Dr FOWLER: Thank you, minister. The question, I think, should be reasonably confined to the metropolitan area in terms of mapping of blackspots. The mapping that we undertook prior to the AdamMax contract was that we made an estimate within the wider metropolitan area of about 55,000 blackspots. The contract was let. The contract is about three-quarters completed. The position currently is that about 70 per cent of the planned towers to be built have been built. That means that there is now opportunity for consumers living in those blackspots to connect to broadband through those towers.

If all were connected, the connections would therefore be covering about 70 per cent of those 55,000. Clearly, it depends if people are connected or choose to connect or use that service for a connection. So, what has been provided is the potential currently built to remove about 70 per cent of those 55,000 blackspots. It depends then on consumers choosing that option and eliminating their personal blackspot. That is the process as it is occurring at present. The build should be finished by November or December this year, the contract having started November of last year.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Did you say 55,000 blackspots?

Dr FOWLER: That was the estimate—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Could you just define a blackspot?

Dr FOWLER: —of the metropolitan area. Your question was the whole of South Australia?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes.

Dr FOWLER: I cannot give you an answer in terms of regional South Australia. That is a different kind of mapping exercise which is difficult to establish because it is so regionalised around small cities and towns. I can give you an estimate of the blackspots on a discrete mapping exercise in the metropolitan area.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What is defined as a blackspot then? What are you defining as a blackspot when you give the figure of 55,000? How big an area?

Dr FOWLER: It depends on whether or not householders or business owners have attempted to obtain broadband by whatever service possible, and they would then lodge their application and find that they cannot connect through the current service providers or, for example, do not choose to go with more expensive mobile service providers. So, the blackspot is where constituents and businesses have been unable to obtain a reasonably priced broadband service.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same reference, what guarantee will the state government give that there will be sufficient South Australian demand for the fibre to the premises or fibre to the node broadband under the federal government's national broadband network announcement, or will the government follow Tasmania and have a customer opt-out for the national broadband network?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The decision was one to be made in the future: it is not a decision we have made as yet. It is not even a matter that has come before me to consider.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I ask the question in the context of a comment made by Professor Paul Kerin, from the Melbourne University School of Business in April of last year, who stated:

[Prime Minister] Rudd claimed that FTTP—

which is the fibre to the premises—

is 'where all countries around the world are going'.

And that is quite wrong. He continues:

Most countries have no FTTP, nor plans for it. Current European...FTTP [or FTTN]—

fibre to the premises and fibre to the node—

penetration is 0.2 per 100 inhabitants. A recent EU-sponsored study forecast that ADSL and cable would remain the main European broadband technologies, while FTTP [or FTTN] coverage would reach only 18 per cent by 2015.

So, I can see the temptation for an opt-out, but I hope we do not go that way.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not going to engage in a debate over the merits or otherwise of the NBN. The only implication it has at the moment for us as a state government is that we have been approached by NBNCo about establishing a point of contact for NBN. We have established a task force to consider NBN-related issues, and that task force reports through the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The NBN is, obviously, being installed to try to speed up access to the internet and all the other ICT information out there. Is the state government supporting the federal government's plan for internet filtering and, if so, why, because many ISP providers are saying that it will slow down the internet and so reduce the benefits of the NBN?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is entirely an issue for the commonwealth and not one on which I will be drawn.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Can I get back to the question about the 55,000 blackspots. Are there certain geographic areas, suburbs or parts of Adelaide where these blackspots are most prevalent? Could you tell us the postcodes or suburbs where the biggest problems lie.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will ask Dr Fowler to respond.

Dr FOWLER: What I think would be the most appropriate is, in fact, to take the question on notice. I can explain to you in the broad that there most certainly are geographies and line of site issues that make some suburbs more or less amenable to receiving this technology but, from a postcode analysis, I do not have that with me. However, if you so wish we can provide you with the information as to where those sites are. Quite clearly, the letting of the contract with Adam was such that the contract clearly specifies that we are keen that the blackspots, where broadband through this technology can reach, will be eliminated.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: If I could take up that offer, please, and ask for that information, I would be most grateful. I have had concerns expressed by businesses in the southern suburbs, for example; they seem to have particular problems down there. Can you tell me what percentage of households access broadband in SA compared to the rest of Australia? Have you reached your target of 5 per cent of the national average?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: During 2008-09 the percentage of internet-connected South Australian households using broadband increased from 57 per cent to 81 per cent. The state continues to lag behind by 5 per cent when compared to the Australian broadband usage of 86 per cent. There are a couple of things I should say, and one is that I would expect that figure to increase in part because of the government's efforts, through the broadband blackspot program (AdamMax). South Australia has many more small towns than any other state in the commonwealth and that would have an effect on the percentage of the population that has access to broadband—it would affect that number.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Following on from that, has the state government undertaken any cost-benefit analysis to determine the take-up of South Australian broadband subscriptions under the federal government's NBN network? Once again, Professor Paul Kerin, from the Melbourne Business School, said:

Evidence shows that many internet users do not value FTTP (fibre to the premises) technology's extra speed enough to buy it when multiple broadband alternatives are available, as in Japan and Australia.

The Japanese government began heavily subsidising FTTP more than 15 years ago. FTTP coverage reached almost 100 per cent coverage 10 years ago, yet less than half of all broadband subscriptions are FTTP.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Once again, the member for Morphett is trying to use this as a forum to debate issues involving the commonwealth relating to the NBN rollout.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, we all want fast internet, minister.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Morphett has a particularly strong opinion, obviously, and one to which he is entitled but it is not one on which I will be drawn in this forum. I can give the member for Morphett some information regarding a cost-benefit analysis done for our WiMax blackspots program on Yorke Peninsula.

On Yorke Peninsula we made an investment of $1.3 million, and there is an estimated economic return on that investment of about $39 million—they are rough figures. It is significant, from studies we have done on economic return from these sorts of investments, that they are significant. I beg your pardon: it was done over two stages, so there was $1.328 million and then $1.467 million. So, for an investment of just under $3 million, there was an economic return of about $39 million. When you invest in this sort of infrastructure, it does generate particularly good economic returns—or at least that is what we found—but I will not be drawn on the NBN issue.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The whole aim of the NBN, obviously, is to improve access. The Thinker in Residence program that you mentioned before, Staying Connected, reminded me of some comments by a former thinker in residence about the uptake of information technology sites such as Twitter. I refer to Baroness Susan Greenfield's comments in March last year. When she was asked about users of information technology like Twitter, she said:

Twitter…what saddens me is the banality of this 'it's all about me culture', where, you know, you just have to publicise you're cleaning your teeth or you're putting your socks on whatever.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am glad that the member for Croydon agrees. The quote continues:

What that suggests to me is someone with a rather shaky sense of identity. It's almost like a small child who keeps saying, 'Look at me do this, look at me do that.'

Baroness Greenfield further commented about Twitter that:

It's primarily a world of a small child, a world of the here and now, a world of a sound byte, a world of an instant frozen moment where nothing has consequences.

As a non-Twitterer I totally agree.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have been a member of this place for just over 13 years, and I have had—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Waite and I have been—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: A very distinguished class.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Very distinguished, the class of '97. I have sat through estimates in those 13 years—I did not have the opportunity to participate in this process when I was Speaker—but I think today is the first time that I have seen an opposition trying to burn time in estimates with these long-winded, meaningless and pointless statements.

The CHAIR: I must say, I am trying to find meaning in that question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know what the meaning is.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Morphett could have used a grievance if he wanted to get his important remark—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point taken.

The CHAIR: Order! Calm down; big deep breaths in and out. With 20 minutes to go, the chair will not be at all upset or hold it against anyone if we decide to go now.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have some more questions that I would like to get back to. Just on Thinkers in Residence and Dr Genevieve Bell, what was the exact period of her tenure? Did your department pay for the residency? How much was paid, and from which budget line was it taken?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We made a contribution. The way Thinkers in Residence works is that they establish partnerships to fund a residence. With Dr Genevieve Bell we were one of the partners, but I think our contribution was principally in-kind, in terms of staff and resources. I am not sure whether or not we made a cash contribution; we would have to check.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So you were not the principal sponsor?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We were the host agency.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: But you did not have to pay for it, basically; it was in-kind.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We were the host agency, but our contribution was mainly in-kind.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14.8. The government has appointed a Mr Nicola Sasanelli as a special envoy higher education and research. I understand that the position is jointly funded by DTED and DPC. DTED has advised that its share of the funding arrangements is $130,000 and I assume that the total cost of the position is somewhere around $260,000 if it is half-funded. What involvement or working relationship exists between your department and Mr Sasanelli? Has your department funded Mr Sasanelli's appointment or activities in any way? Have you received any benefit from his work?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have not made any funding, so no funds have come from my department towards that. It is under the Premier's University Cities project, but we will be a beneficiary. There is no doubt that with the work I do, and particularly my strong interest in attracting international students, the work he does will be an important input. Dr Fowler gives presentations to various delegations that come through.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So you have not had any involvement with Sasanelli?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we have had involvement, but we do not fund it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am just trying to work out what that role delivers, the benefits it delivers.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is an appropriate question for the Premier because it comes under his responsibilities, under the University Cities Project.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I refer to the Royal Institution in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14.23. How much are we spending on the RI? The budget line refers to a figure of around $8.3 million over three years on the RI and the Bragg Initiative. Can you extend on that and clarify exactly what amount is spent on the RiAus per year, and how much is to be spent over the estimates period?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The RiAus came under the responsibility of this department from 1 July. If you look at the budget line for the 2010-11 budget year, there is zero funding to the RI from this department. The government provided a total of $12.7 million for the purchase and refurbishment of the Science Exchange building—approximately $3.8 million for the purchase of the building, and $8.47 million for the refurbishment.

A grant of $1 million was given by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, pursuant to a funding agreement in June 2008 to establish and maintain a capital fund, and that income is used for recurrent expenditure by the RiAus, so there is no ongoing funding from my department. The contract with DECS has not happened yet, but it is the intention in the future that the RiAus will deliver an outreach program for the education department. So there is a cost associated with that for a specific program that they will be delivering but, other than that, from the date of my responsibility for the RiAus coming under this portfolio, there is no ongoing funding. Santos provided a $5 million one-off grant in 2008, and $15 million was provided by the commonwealth as well.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Are you able to say how much funding the RiAus is likely to receive from the state government in each year of the estimates period? Are you able to say that, or are you saying it will be none?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: None, zero; it will be none. It is independent. It is not an arm of government; it has an independent board. The government is the landlord—we own the building—but we do not provide any ongoing funds. In the future, we might identify projects, which we ask the RI to undertake and enter into a contract with to deliver a particular program on behalf of not just my department but other departments as well. Other than that, there is nothing in the forward estimates.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 14.8, the Premier's Science and Research Council. How many meetings of the Premier's Science and Research Council were held in 2009-10?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Normally, there would be four, but one was missed because of the state election.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, three?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, and since I have been minister there have been two, and I have been able to attend one of them.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: How many of those five meetings were attended by either the Premier or the minister? You have mentioned that you have attended one of the last two.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will have to get that information for you and check the minutes. Certainly it is my intention to attend as many as I possibly can. The great thing about the Premier's Science and Research Council is the incredible high calibre of people who participate in it. As minister, I think it is very important that, at a very high level, the government attends. The CE of DFEEST is generally at the meetings as an observer. It is an incredibly high calibre council, and it will be my policy to attend as many of those council meetings as I possibly can.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Has the Premier attended any of those five meetings?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would have to get back to you.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What is the cost of maintaining support to the council?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of maintaining the council, it is about 1.2 FTEs (dedicated officers) providing support to the council. I will have to get back to you on what the costs are of the council. It is a reasonably negligible amount, but the important thing they do is administer the Premier's Science and Research Fund. The council administers that and makes decisions about where those funds go. They do important work.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14.23. There was an estimated result for 2009-10 of $15.29 million but the budget was only $10.25 million. It is a significantly different result to what was budgeted. There must have been a one-off payment there. Are you able to tell me why that blew out by such a significant sum—about $5 million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It was as a result of an increase in grants and subsidies of $3.6 million. It was due to additional expenditure associated with the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy; carryover from 2008-09 into 2009-10 relating to the Mawson Institute for Advanced Manufacturing; expenditure associated with the Royal Institute of Australia, which was transferred from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and it was partially offset by carryovers into 2010-11 relating to the Broadband Development Fund and the Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing project.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I think I can put the rest of my questions on notice. With your leave, Mr Chairman, I seek to insert the omnibus questions in Hansard.

Leave granted.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the baseline data that was provided to the Shared Services Reform Office by each department or agency reporting to the minister—including the current total cost of the provision of payroll, finance, human resources, procurement, records management and information technology services in each department or agency reporting to the minister, as well as the full-time equivalent staffing numbers involved?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2009-10 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

3. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees will there be at 30 June 2010, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the employee and the Total Employment Cost (TEC) of the employee?

4. In financial year 2009-10 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2010-11? How much was approved by cabinet?

5. Between 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010, will the minister list job title and total employment cost of each position (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more)—

(a) which has been abolished; and

(b) which has been created?

6. For the year 2009-10, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grant, and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15?

7. For all capital works projects listed in Budget Paper 5 that are the responsibility of the minister, will the minister list the total amounts spent to date on each project?

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages (TVSPs) will be offered for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14?

I thank the minister in particular for being prepared to answer questions from the opposition through what has been a fairly long session. It is important to us, and I thank you for that. I thank the members of the government, who have been on the committee, for their patience, and the chair of course, and all the staff who have been involved in preparing these responses because I really value their work. It has been very productive.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the proposed payments concluded.

Mrs VLAHOS: I move:

That the draft report be the report of the committee.

Motion carried.

At 17:10 the committee concluded.