Department for Energy and Mining, $92,694,000

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Fletcher, Chair, SA Water Board.

Mr J. Hollamby, General Manager, Business Services, SA Water.

Mr D. Percevault, Senior Manager, Finance, SA Water.

The CHAIR: If we can please recommence with the portfolio of SA Water. The minister appearing is the Minister for Environment and Water. Estimate of payments for the Department for Environment and Water, administered items for the Department for Environment and Water and the Department for Energy and Mining. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 2. Minister, if you could advise the change of your advisers and make an opening statement if you wish.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I would like to introduce the agency officers assisting me here today: to my right we have Mr Andrew Fletcher AO, Chair of the SA Water Board; to my left is Mr Jamie Hollamby, General Manager of Business Services; and Mr Darren Percevault, Senior Manager of Finance. I would like to thank the team here with me, as well as staff from SA Water who have put significant time and effort into preparing the budget as well as the briefings used for estimates. This is no small task and I commend the agency for their hard work and dedication.

SA Water reliably delivers safe, clean drinking water, sewerage services and recycled water to more than 1.7 million South Australians every day of every year and is committed to ensuring that these services represent excellent value to all who benefit from them. SA Water strives to be a leader in innovation and technology while ensuring their customers remain at the heart of everything that they do and that they are delivering solutions that are important to their customers.

The 2018-19 year has seen a number of successful achievements for SA Water in several areas. Each year, SA Water administers a diverse range of large capital projects across South Australia. In 2018-19, some of these important projects include: water quality and supply improvements to the townships of Orroroo in the state's Mid North, and Warooka and Point Turton on Yorke Peninsula; stage 1 of the Mount Barker development supply scheme; additional capacity for Barossa Infrastructure Limited; new and improved water storage at the Morgan Water Treatment Plant and the Tailem Bend to Keith pipeline; and wastewater treatment projects, including continuing upgrades to the Bolivar wastewater plant, which was constructed in 1965 and processes the greater percentage of metropolitan Adelaide's raw sewage. Upgrades to this plant ensure a secure network that complies with SA Water standards and government network requirements.

Other projects include upgrading capacity for the Port Lincoln wastewater networks, allowing for growth and improved operations for the region's seafood industry; expanding the North LeFevre wastewater pump station pipeline, accommodating local network growth forecasts, and reducing overflow and odour risk; capital projects for SA Water's dams, guaranteeing compliance with the guidelines set by the Australian National Committee on Large Dams for the Kangaroo Creek Dam, the Mount Bold Dam and the Baroota Dam; and working in collaboration with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to ensure the operational integrity of SA Water assets in and around DPTI's Northern Connector project.

Another ambitious project that SA Water is successfully expanding is its Smart Network program. This project is part of a broad program of work to improve customer experience and demonstrates smart investment. Initially delivered in December 2017, this initiative saw the introduction of new technologies, an effective smart water network for the Adelaide CBD and other areas. This technology has been proven by water utilities around the world, with SA Water being one of the first Australian water utilities to adopt it on this scale. Benefits include minimising disruption caused to customers and the wider community by water main breaks as well as an increased understanding of pipe network performance, leading to increasing asset life.

The CBD project, delivered over two phases, has enabled SA Water to make more informed, short and long-term network operation and asset management decisions that will ultimately deliver customers a better water service. The recent completion of stage 3, announced in early July, marks a milestone for this program and realises the successful installation of water, wastewater and odour sensors across select regional and metropolitan sites, including Athelstone, North Adelaide, Penneshaw and Port Lincoln areas, as well as into two wastewater networks in Stonyfell and Gawler.

As members of this committee would be well aware, South Australian households and businesses have been experiencing growing and more volatile electricity prices over recent years. SA Water is one of the state's largest electricity users, consuming 350 gigawatt hours in 2017-18. SA Water has placed itself in a strong position in achieving its penultimate goal of reducing its net energy costs to zero through its Zero Cost Energy Future project, which will fundamentally change SA Water's electricity cost structure to enable the delivery of lower and more stable prices to its customers, provide stimulus to local companies throughout the regions and improve the resilience of its networks during energy market disturbances.

SA Water aims to reduce its net energy costs to zero from 2020-21 through the installation of solar panels and storage across multiple sites, along with other energy management initiatives. This initiative is in line with this government's commitment to easing cost-of-living pressures and is the single largest way that SA Water can reduce its operating costs to deliver sustainable savings, as well as a low and stable price path for its customers.

With customer engagement as a central focus, SA Water launched its customer engagement process in 2017 for the next regulatory period from 2020 to 2024. SA Water is required to submit a regulatory proposal, Our Plan 2020, to ESCOSA, which will outline how SA Water proposes to operate and deliver services over these next four years. Customer feedback through engagement is a primary consideration in developing Our Plan 2020.

I am advised that customers have had opportunities to feed into this important process through online surveys, online platforms, focus groups and other face-to-face activities. Customers are encouraged to voice what is important to them, whether they would support initiatives or not. Customer opinion is at the forefront of SA Water's planning for the next regulatory period 2020 to 2024, while fulfilling all regulatory and legal requirements.

South Australians rely on SA Water's services every hour of every day, through a range of interactions. These may be as simple as providing clean, safe water to residential customers, through to working arrangements with large commercial and agricultural water consumers, all of whom benefit from the quality services that SA Water provides.

In addition to an extensive list of capital works that are currently underway to continually improve the services that SA Water provides to South Australians, the corporation has also achieved efficiencies in corporate credit card allocations within the business. Since last financial year, the total amount of corporate credit cards in circulation has reduced by approximately 140. Further efficiencies have also been achieved by reducing the number of contractors hired, a reduction of 0.5 per cent or 7.3 FTEs; and expenditure on taxis and related services, more than $2,000 less this financial year compared with last year.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with the SA Water Board and SA Water staff in delivering excellence of service, high-quality and affordable services to the people of South Australia.

Dr CLOSE: I will limit my opening statement to thanking the officials and the minister for attending today and the work you have done to prepare for this; I know it is considerable. My question relates to the way in which SA Water monitors its water quality for the drinking water supply and, in particular, given it is in the news, about Myponga. How often is cryptosporidium tested for post-treatment?

The CHAIR: Member for Port Adelaide, which budget reference?

Dr CLOSE: We are in Budget Paper 3, page 82. How is the testing process done post-treatment, how often is it made public and when was the last time that cryptosporidium was detected post-treatment at Myponga?

The CHAIR: Budget Paper 3, did you say?

Dr CLOSE: Yes. Pages 81 and 82, SA Water.

The CHAIR: Pages 81 and 82, at the top. All good, thank you. Minister.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Mr Chair, I am not sure where the deputy leader is zeroing in on here in terms of the budget line in relation to water treatment at Myponga.

The CHAIR: I am going to assume that it says the words 'SA Water'. It is very broad, but I have been allowing a broad interpretation for most of estimates, so I am happy for you to take that one on notice, minister, if that is the case. However, I will remind the deputy leader that we do need line items and budget papers appropriately referenced.

Dr CLOSE: Indeed. You would be aware that there is a complexity with SA Water, in that it does not have its own agency statement as part of paper 4.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately, the composition of the budget papers—

Dr CLOSE: Nonetheless, 45 minutes—

The CHAIR: —is way beyond my pay grade. Deputy leader, I can only go with what is in front of me.

Dr CLOSE: Indeed—is devoted to SA Water. SA Water is responsible for the delivery of drinking water to South Australians, and it does it well. My question is about the way in which it manages potential contamination and how it does testing for that. I am particularly interested in the testing at Myponga.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is obviously a very specific question about the specific water testing regimes at a particular reservoir, namely, Myponga Reservoir, which was discussed extensively in the Department for Environment and Water's estimates committee a short while ago. Obviously, the SA Water Corporation takes a very serious and thorough approach when it comes to testing water quality. I believe that occurs in line with world best practice, as discussed at the previous estimates committee.

I believe the situation at Myponga is that that reservoir occupies what is known as a compromised catchment as a consequence of dairy farming occurring within the vicinity of the catchment. The dairy farming within that catchment is by far the greatest risk to the quality of drinking water, historically and likely to the present day, within that reservoir. As a consequence, the testing regime will be focused on the particular risks that arise as a consequence of the geographical location of that reservoir.

In terms of the particular scientific approach to water quality testing at Myponga and the incidences of particular water quality problems at that reservoir, I do not have that level of detail with me today, but I will be happy to take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: You would not care to ask a friend who might be sitting next to you who might know?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I did.

The CHAIR: The minister has indicated that he will take it on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Fair enough. I would like to be clear that part of the question I would like taken on notice is the last time that cryptosporidium was detected. How is the government able to be assured that they will know if—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can I clarify that the deputy leader has changed her question.

Dr CLOSE: No, I included that, but I was not sure if you heard it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: She said, firstly, 'the cryptosporidium tested post-treatment'.

Dr CLOSE: Post-treatment, that is right.

The CHAIR: I am happy for you to take that on notice as well, minister.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Post-treatment, because you cannot tell when it has been detected before treatment.

The CHAIR: Indeed.

Dr CLOSE: Exactly, and that is why I did not ask that. How is the government able to be assured that it will know if somebody has been made sick as a result of any contamination of drinking water? What is the process that SA Water uses, presumably in its relationship with SA Health, to get the feedback that there may have been a problem in the water supply?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take the details of that question on notice.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I refer the committee to Budget Paper 3, Volume 1, page 80. Will the minister outline for the committee the investments that are being made into SA Water's infrastructure?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It gives me great pleasure to update the committee on the investments that are being made in SA Water's infrastructure. SA Water continues to develop plans that manage level of service, risk and life cycle costs across water and wastewater assets. SA Water's budget includes provisions for proactive as well as reactive maintenance across all asset types to ensure reliable service is maintained efficiently.

SA Water invests significant capital in the ongoing renewal of its infrastructure. This investment ensures its network can support population growth and increased demand, along with continually improving the service SA Water provides its customers and the quality of their products. In 2019-20, SA Water will invest $620.3 million, excluding contributed assets, on the renewal and upgrade of its pipe network, treatment plants, water storages and other related infrastructure, building on the $608.7 million capital investment in 2018-19.

Investment in SA Water's infrastructure provides improved water and wastewater services to the South Australian community. However, importantly, it also provides economic stimulus to South Australian communities. It creates employment opportunities and fosters local industry participation through the construction and commissioning of new and ongoing work. The growth of local residential development into the future is supported and environmental benefits are realised.

For instance, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, commonly known as NAIS, will expand the use of recycled water for advanced agrifood production in the Northern Adelaide Plains. It is also a key project supported by the government for the economic development of that area. This project represents an important opportunity for new investment, increased production and job creation in the region. Once complete, the NAIS will provide an additional 12 gigalitres of water to help develop up to 300 hectares of new export-focused horticulture production, which is estimated to add $578 million to the state's economy each year and create around 3,700 jobs when fully operational.

A further example is the upgrade of the Warooka and Point Turton water supply that demonstrates the benefits of investment in SA Water's infrastructure. From late last year, about 1,500 people living and working in Warooka and Point Turton on Yorke Peninsula began receiving a more secure supply of high-quality drinking water through a newly constructed pipeline.

Approximately 26 full-time jobs were created during this project that saw the installation of 38.5 kilometres of pipeline, a booster pump station along the pipeline route, 1,250 metres of new mains water in Point Turton and re-roofing of the Warooka storage tank. The sustainability of the Warooka and Point Turton township through the provision of a reliable water supply will enable the development of this community and greater water security into the future.

The environmental benefits realised through investment in SA Water's infrastructure are seen through projects such as the upgrade of the Port Lincoln wastewater network capacity. Allowing the seafood industry to discharge higher saline flows into SA Water's wastewater network in 2019 and beyond not only provides additional capacity for future growth in Port Lincoln and its seafood industry but improves the network's environmental compliance.

The member for Hammond would be interested in the project to relocate the Murray Bridge wastewater treatment plant, which will see the decommissioning of a 50-year-old structure that is reaching the end of its asset life. The new, higher capacity treatment plant will be built away from both the River Murray and the Rural City of Murray Bridge at a site best identified to manage odour, conserve heritage, flora and fauna, and build on effluent re-use opportunities.

This project is forecast to see approximately $13 million spent on goods and services in South Australia, including about $5 million on goods and services in the Murray Bridge/Mallee region. Additionally, over 46,000 hours of South Australian labour will be used in the project, with over half of that being within the Murray Bridge region.

Ms BEDFORD: Continuing on the effluent line, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 138, but you might also look at Budget Paper 3, Volume 4, page 71. How can we truly advance South Australia's international reputation for water management when 4,400 households in the north-eastern suburbs are still on an archaic sewerage system run by the local council which, I believe, is the last in the metropolitan area? We are lucky, I suppose, from that perspective, but not really.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Florey for her question, and a very worthy question it is. This is certainly an issue that has been raised with me not only by the member for Florey in the past but also the member for Newland, who has a couple of thousand residents who are still on what is known as the CWMS.

Ms BEDFORD: What does it stand for?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Community Wastewater Management System. It has become very apparent in recent times that the asset maintenance regime around that community wastewater system leaves a lot to be desired and has not had the investment in the asset maintenance that it should have had. Notwithstanding who the owner is, it is something that is far from ideal and is resulting in a whole range of problems around odour, sewage spills, etc. In fact, it also appears to be reducing the value of residential properties in that area, or at least the potential value, in that people are put off purchasing houses that are on one of these systems. That is certainly the anecdotal information that has been put to me by local members of parliament.

The government is concerned about this. SA Water has attempted to have conversations with the City of Tea Tree Gully council. I understand that those conversations have been challenging in terms of what information the council will put on the table. I should say, though, that it has been several weeks since I have asked how those conversations are going, but historically I understand that those conversations have been difficult, and we are very keen for the City of Tea Tree Gully to outline the costs associated with the project and the costs that residents or homeowners are being charged to access the wastewater system. That sort of information will help SA Water derive an understanding as to how it can assist with this problem.

In recent times, SA Water has taken on community wastewater management systems in other parts of the state, most notably in the Yankalilla community. I think I also read something recently about the Wirrina development which is also in the District Council of Yankalilla, and those systems had been run by the council. I am also aware of discussions that have taken place with the Ceduna council around the Water West system run by the council out there. There are certainly a number of precedents in place where SA Water has stepped in and assisted to deal with these circumstances.

However, of course, this will come with a cost. It is a cost that has not been established yet. I would urge the City of Tea Tree Gully to have frank disclosure of the challenges and the costs associated with that. I will certainly work with the member for Florey and the member for Newland and other members with affected communities as we work towards a solution to this, but the council has to front up with the books and tell us the situation

Ms BEDFORD: As I understand it then, all that is holding this process up is that they are not talking to you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I understand that the council has not provided the level of information required to SA Water. That does not mean that SA Water can and would step in when they get that information, but it would allow us to have a much fuller discussion as to the situation that affects the Tea Tree Gully, Modbury, Surrey Downs and Fairview Park communities and what other suburbs are impacted by this. Those conversations have not been as frank or as forthcoming as we would like. There has been a lot of noise from the sidelines and motions passed in the council, but not a lot of solutions-focused conversations coming from the council to SA Water.

Ms BEDFORD: So it is the last in the metropolitan area that is still not connected?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I cannot confirm that for sure; I can find out for you.

Ms BEDFORD: That would be good.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have not come across any others.

Ms BEDFORD: No, I have not either. I will be looking forward to helping.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I look forward to working with the member for Florey, as I always do.

Mr BROWN: I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 80, about halfway down the annual program for water quality management. Minister, are you aware that in December last year SA Water discovered that a property in Mawson Lakes had its drinking water plumbing incorrectly connected to the recycled water system?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I was aware there was a water quality situation that occurred in the Mawson Lakes area last year.

Mr BROWN: Can you advise how many audits of plumbing were done of properties in the area surrounding the affected property?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I cannot provide that specific information today, but I can take that on notice and find out.

Mr BROWN: Can you advise how many random audits were performed by SA Water staff of other properties attached to the same recycled water system?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will also have to take that question on notice. This is a matter that would be undertaken by the Office of the Technical Regulator who, I understand, attended the estimates committee with the Minister for Energy and Mining.

Mr BROWN: So the water quality of residents of Mawson Lakes is not something that SA Water is particularly concerned about, even though they are customers of SA Water?

The CHAIR: Member for Playford, can you direct me back to a budget line item in terms of that question?

Mr BROWN: Sure. I could do two things. I can either draw your attention to page 80, water quality management, or alternatively I could ask this question: does SA Water derive income from customers in the Mawson Lakes area?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I understand that we do.

Mr BROWN: You do? Great. I will continue my line of questioning then.

The CHAIR: I will determine the line of questioning, ultimately.

Mr BROWN: Okay; can I have a ruling, please?

The CHAIR: If you have a question, please ask it and I will determine if it is acceptable.

Mr BROWN: My question is related to the same incident you spoke about previously. I note that in your opening statement you talked about the importance of providing good water quality to customers of SA Water. How many local residents were contacted to inform them that problems had been discovered with the recycled water system?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have information before me about the specific water quality incident in the community of Mawson Lakes.

Mr BROWN: How many local residents were asked to perform a self-audit of the recycled water?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have to take that on notice as well.

Mr BROWN: You might be able to answer this one. What are the sources of the water in the Mawson Lakes recycled water system?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The water in the Mawson Lakes recycled water system is sourced from the Bolivar treatment facility.

Mr BROWN: So it is recycled sewage?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

Mr BROWN: Okay. Is SA Water aware of any ill-health experienced by those who consumed the recycled water mentioned previously over an extended period?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take that on notice.

Mr BROWN: What changes have been made to SA Water's auditing procedures for recycled water connections following this incident?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take that on notice as well, but I should also mention that it is likely to be a matter for the Office of the Technical Regulator to provide that level of quality control across our network.

Mr BROWN: Does SA Water believe that it has complied with the Water Industry Act in this case to supply clean drinking water?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: The member for Basham.

Mr BASHAM: Finniss.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I have done that twice. Clearly, there is a need for the Electoral Commission to review some of the names of our electorates.

Mr BROWN: He is not dead yet.

Mr PEDERICK: Long may he live.

The CHAIR: The member for Finniss.

Mr BASHAM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I refer the committee to Budget Paper 3, Volume 1, page 80. Will the minister outline for the committee the developments and delivery around the Zero Cost Energy Future project?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Finniss for his question; and I do think you are worthy to one day have a seat named in your honour. Anything is a better name than the seat of Black. With Zero Cost Energy Future, SA Water aims to reduce its net energy costs to zero contributing to lower and more stable prices for South Australian customers, and provide stimulus to South Australian companies, as well as fundamentally improving the reliance of its networks during times of energy market uncertainty, plus improving environmental outcomes for our state in using cleaner energy sources.

It is worth mentioning that the work that has been undertaken by SA Water to develop the Zero Cost Energy Future project really is nation leading, but it could quite well be determined to be internationally leading as well. A week or so ago, I was able to attend a meeting with The Climate Group in London. They were very interested in writing this project up as a case study as to how a major utility could essentially come off-grid, and eliminate its carbon footprint in terms of its energy use at least. It is a project that is innovative and impressive, and is one that we ought to be thinking about sharing further afield.

SA Water, as many would know, is one of the state's biggest energy consumers with an expected $68 million in annual expenditure on energy by 2020-21, that being without any intervention from the status quo in terms of source of energy. Through the Zero Cost Energy Future project, it is seeking to reduce its reliance on the energy market, and dramatically reduce its energy costs, and also have a very significant contribution to the decarbonisation of our state's water utility.

Thus far, SA Water has awarded the framework agreement contract for the deployment of up to 154 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic generation and 34 megawatts of energy storage. As part of Zero Cost Energy Future, up to 70 SA Water sites across the state will receive more than 500,000 solar panel installations, bringing with it an estimated 250 construction jobs and a significant contribution towards neutralising SA Water's electricity and network costs.

As part of stage 1 of the solar rollout, three metropolitan sites have already been constructed at Christies Beach, Glenelg and Hope Valley, totalling just over four megawatts of power and comprising 12,000 solar panels. These sites complement an earlier installation at Crystal Brook and provide an excellent knowledge base to support the installation at the remaining sites. Under the framework contract, a further 12 sites are now under contract, with site works already underway at Morgan.

It is anticipated that the majority of the construction activity will be completed by June 2020, returning our focus to the South Australian people, while the exact savings brought to customers through Zero Cost Energy Future will vary depending on factors, such as wholesale energy prices—which are obviously always fluctuating—customer demand and natural reservoir intakes. This visionary project aligns with this government's plan to reduce the rising cost-of-living pressures in South Australian households and businesses now and into the future and also our aim to decarbonise our operations, where possible.

Dr CLOSE: I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 82. There is commentary at the top of the page regarding SA Water. What is the forecast operating profit after tax for SA Water at the end of each financial year over the forward estimates?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can I just clarify: you asked for the profit before tax?

Dr CLOSE: After.

Membership:

Hon. A. Piccolo substituted for Ms Hildyard.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is hard to calculate the exact level of tax. There are a few variables in there, but the best estimate of that is to give you what the dividend would be, which is pretty close. That dividend is projected in the 2019-20 financial year to be $179 million; in the 2020-21 financial year, $178.4 million; in the 2021-22 financial year, $191.1 million; and in the 2022-23 financial year, $213.9 million.

Dr CLOSE: What is the forecast operating expense for SA Water for each year over the forward estimates?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have that figure in front of me.

Dr CLOSE: What are the guarantee fees forecast for SA Water to be paid each financial year over the forward estimates?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will also have to take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you, Chair. I think I will do the omnibus questions now, for fear of not getting them done, and then there may be room for other questions after that.

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2019 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates?

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates?

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created.

3. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor, and

method of appointment?

4. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2018-19 and budgeted cost for 2019-20.

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019.

6. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2019, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF Estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded?

(e) What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2018 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2018, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess, and what is the salary of each excess employee?

11. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20?

12. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20? How was much sought and how much was approved?

13. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

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

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

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

14. For the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

15. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

17. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2018 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2018 and what is their purpose?

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

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates?

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take those on notice.

Dr CLOSE: If I can return to a more sedate pace, I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 82, with the commentary about SA Water. How much, if at all, have board fees increased for SA Water board members?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They have not increased.

Dr CLOSE: For Budget Paper 3, page 80, capital projects, could the minister provide the table for SA Water's capital projects with the cost per project allocated across each year of the budget year and across the forward estimates?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I can certainly provide that. There is a forecast, which is subject to the upcoming determination by ESCOSA, which obviously is a filter this has to work through and is imminent in terms of the current financial year. We can certainly provide the projected list of projects.

Dr CLOSE: Is there any unallocated capital contingency or amount in SA Water's forecast capital program?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that there is no specific contingency, but if there was leftover money, there would be a list of projects that would then use that leftover money. It would be a rolling list of projects.

Dr CLOSE: With the assembled—

The CHAIR: Sorry, deputy leader. Alas, time has expired. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of proposed payments for the portfolio of SA Water and the estimate of payments for the Department for Energy and Mining completed. If we can move to the portfolio of the Environment Protection Authority.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr T. Circelli, Chief Executive, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr R. Jacka, Chief Finance Officer, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr P. Dolan, Director, Regulation, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr K. Baldry, Director, Science and Information, Environment Protection Authority.

Ms K. Bellette, Director, Strategy and Assessment, Environment Protection Authority.

Ms S. Behrendt, General Manager, People and Performance, Environment Protection Authority.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 2. Minister, when you are ready, if you can please introduce your advisers.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I would like to introduce the departmental officers who are assisting me here today. I have Mr Tony Circelli, Chief Executive of the EPA; Richard Jacka, Chief Finance Officer; and Peter Dolan, Director of Regulation. Behind me, I have Keith Baldry, Director of Science and Information; Kathryn Bellette, Director of Strategy and Assessment; and Suzanne Behrendt, General Manager, People and Performance.

Mr Chair, South Australia's unique and diverse environment is a vital part of our state's character and is a strong focus area of the state government. The Environment Protection Authority, as the state's environmental regulator, plays an important role in working to protect and enhance South Australia's environment. The EPA has continued its work with industry, government and the community supporting and encouraging sustainable business practices and innovation and working towards a more circular economy.

South Australia's container deposit scheme, administered and regulated by the EPA, is an iconic South Australian policy measure and is broadly recognised as one of the best performing beverage-related product stewardship schemes in the world. The scheme, since its inception some 40 years ago, has proved itself as a factor in reducing litter in the environment and the amount that goes to landfill and increasing recycling rates.

In January 2018, I initiated a review of the scheme and released the scoping paper 'Improving South Australia's Recycling Makes Cents', inviting the community and industry to comment on every aspect of the scheme with a view to identifying opportunities to enhance and build on the scheme's successes into the future. The EPA is currently collating all feedback received, which will be used to inform a discussion paper on options for changes to the scheme. I look forward to releasing the discussion paper for consultation in the 2019-20 financial year.

Other significant pieces of work the EPA has undertaken over the last year include the release of the 2018 State of the Environment Report, which brought together a huge range of environmental monitoring data from across the state to inform the community about the current state of our environment.

In July 2018, the EPA released a suite of documents providing guidance on the risk-based assessment and remediation of site contamination to ensure a consistent understanding and application of the documents is applied across the state. The EPA has continued its work in the waste and resource recovery sector as we seek to increase resource recovery in South Australia and move towards a more circular economy.

Initiatives progressed in 2018-19 under the EPA's waste reform program include more detailed monitoring of waste inventory at resource recovery and disposal depots, introducing stronger stockpiling controls and reviewing waste levy collection procedures. Work in these crucial aspects of the waste and resource recovery sector will continue into 2019-20.

Understanding the importance of these waste reform initiatives, $2 million in funding, which forms part of the recycling transition package announced in the 2019-20 state budget, will be given to the EPA over the forward estimates to further strengthen its waste levy compliance activities. That amounts to $1.6 million. The remaining $400,000 has been provided to research and gather information to inform the review of the container deposit scheme and subsequent policy development.

The EPA has conducted public consultation on a bill to replace the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 with legislation that is more modern and aimed at improving safety for the community, enhanced security measures and a more streamlined licensing process as the act has not been significantly updated since it became law some 37 years ago.

The EPA has also continued to work hard to find efficiencies and use taxpayer money as carefully as possible. Practically, this has led to a 13 per cent reduction in credit cards held by the agency resulting in 561 less credit card transactions compared with 2017-18, and $10,000 per annum being saved on pot plant usage compared with earlier in the 2017-18.

I am confident that by continuing to implement a modern and continuous improvement approach to regulation and policymaking, development assessment, licensing and enforcement, and by supporting innovation and working closely with communities, industries, research bodies and governments, the EPA will be able to effect real and positive changes for a better environment for generations to come.

Dr CLOSE: Just as an opening statement, I would like to thank the officials who have attended today and for the work that you have done leading up to today. I know it takes a lot of effort to get ready for estimates so thank you for that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 45, solid waste levy increase, which will not surprise you because of my interest in local government. My question to the minister is as follows: what modelling has been undertaken by the relevant agency to calculate the likely financial impact on councils, resulting from the increase in illegal dumping that will result from the government's 40 per cent bin tax hike, remembering that councils are hit twice through illegal dumping: the cost of the clean-up and then the bin tax hike on disposal?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is that modelling specific to illegal dumping?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, the total cost to councils, which will actually also include illegal dumping or the collection of illegal dumping.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: But not limited to illegal dumping?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But certainly including.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is a complete lack of evidence to suggest a connection between the two, so we would be discounting that straightaway.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So you have actually done no modelling regarding the illegal dumping itself?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Of illegal dumping?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is not for the EPA to do that modelling. I understand that the Local Government Association local councils have been unable to confirm the extent to which increases and levies in the past have led to an increase in illegal dumping. I will come back to the broader modelling in a moment. Obviously, that information can only be provided by local councils to the EPA or Green Industries SA. That information in terms of volumes is held at a local level.

It is worth saying that up until recently Queensland had no waste levy yet still had to deal with illegal dumping during the time of having no levy whatsoever. There is no body of evidence to suggest that, prior to South Australia having a levy some 20 years ago, there was less illegal dumping than when the levy was brought in. In fact, culture change during the last 20 years or so since the introduction of a levy is likely to suggest that, with the presence of a levy, illegal dumping has declined, not increased.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Chairman, if I could follow up on the same budget line, Budget Paper 5, page 45, solid waste levy. Minister, just to clarify my understanding, is it your evidence to this committee that in your opinion the increase in the solid waste levy, or increase in what people pay when they have to bring their refuse to a dump, etc., has no impact whatsoever on the rate of illegal dumping? Is that your evidence?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The evidence would suggest that because jurisdictions that have no levy at all still have to deal with illegal dumping. Where there is a levy in place or when it is brought in, certainly it has been the case in South Australia that, in terms of evidence that has been provided or not provided as the case may be by the Local Government Association or individual local councils, there has not been an evidence-based increase in illegal dumping.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is your opinion as well?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is not only my opinion but the evidence that has been provided or not provided to me. Councils have not been able to provide an evidence base to suggest that, as the solid waste levy rose under the previous government, illegal dumping rose in a way where you could determine a linear relationship between the rising levy and an increase in illegal dumping occurring in South Australian communities.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Again, I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 45, solid waste levy increase. Minister, in your opinion, the evidence or submissions made by local government are unconvincing in this regard?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have not seen evidence provided by local government that has been able to demonstrate a relationship between the increased levy and an increase in illegal dumping, fly tipping or whatever it might be called. What I do have is the transcript of the Hon. Ian Hunter making statements in this room to say exactly the same thing. I would be happy to provide you with the evidence that Ian Hunter provided this house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Through you, Mr Chairman, just to clarify because the answer did not quite address the issue I raised: I understand that local government has made submissions to you on this matter, and you find those submissions unconvincing.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have not seen evidence that convinces me in any way that there is a relationship between the levy increase—of course, that would not be possible to demonstrate because, under this government, we are not into a discernible period of the levy rise that could see an evidence base built at this stage. Anything that local government would present would be a result of the levy rises under the Labor government between 2002 and 2018.

As Ian Hunter and other members of the cabinet made abundantly clear in statements in this place during Labor's time in power when they increased the levy substantially, there was no discernible relationship between an increase in the levy and an increase in illegal dumping. The only information I have is historic evidence, as tendered by the previous government.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Same question, same budget line: can I just clarify and confirm that you have actually received submissions from local government, or your agencies have received submissions on this matter from local government?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That may have been received by Green Industries or it may have been received by the parliamentary committee, which is undertaking a look at waste management in the state. I understand the member for Playford is on that committee, but I am unaware of what those submissions have seen.

But it has certainly been put to me anecdotally by representatives from the Local Government Association that this is the case. When I have asked for evidence to be provided to me, I have not seen it, but the verbal arguments, the anecdotal arguments, have not been backed with data or evidence. They have not been able to say that in, for example, the City of Marion when, under Labor, the waste levy was $40 a tonne and it increased to $60 a tonne, there was not a discernible increase in illegal dumping.

Dr CLOSE: If we can look at Budget Paper 5, page 45, and the solid waste levy, I am interested less in the amount of the levy and more in what the target is for reduction of solid waste going into landfill and so on, as opposed to the circular economy, ideally, and not using materials that require recycling in the first place but, if necessary, recycling. Is there a target in volume and in weight for solid waste over the next four years?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: These targets are set and established under the Green Industries SA component of my portfolio.

Dr CLOSE: Would you like me to ask again? I am happy to ask again shortly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy to provide a bit of an answer, but with those advisers here I would get a much more thorough answer.

Dr CLOSE: I am happy to ask that then. My next question is connected to the setting of the levy, though, so tell me if you also would like me to move that. Has there been modelling done? Presuming the levy is not primarily to acquire income for government but is primarily to create a disincentive for people to get rid of their waste into landfill, is there a model that the government has been drawing on for what rate the levy needs to be for what quantum of reduction? I am happy to move that to the next session if that is where the expertise sits.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think it would better to do that.

Dr CLOSE: I will probably ask it more briefly the next time.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They are listening in, so they will be ready for it.

Dr CLOSE: On page 45 it says, 'In line with government policy, the majority of additional revenue will go into environmental programs.' What is the revenue that does not go into environmental programs?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As I understand it, on the EPA's side of the budget, because of course this splits between the EPA and Green Industries SA, the contribution to the state's bottom line, to the Department of Treasury and Finance, is $17.675 million in the financial year just gone. Obviously, this varies in terms of dumping, etc. We have projections for the forward estimates: the best and most accurate is the account for the previous financial year, which was $17.675 million.

Dr CLOSE: It went to Treasury, did it not?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: For Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 164, I presume that the Green Industry Fund is held as an administered item against the EPA; there is a reference to it being so. I will ask this question and assume that these are the people who can answer it: what was the balance of the Green Industry Fund at the start of the financial year 2018-19?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That would be a question to ask of Green Industries as well.

Dr CLOSE: They hold the entire fund, even though they do not spend it all?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: I see.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond seeks the call. I will come back to you, member for Port Adelaide.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, sir. I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 167. Can the minister outline for the committee the Environment Protection Authority's progress in its review of the container deposit scheme?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Hammond for this very important question. The South Australian container deposit scheme has been highly successful as a litter reduction program since its inception in 1977. It was the first such scheme in the country and it has, in fact, taken a long time for other jurisdictions in our nation to catch up. They have only been able to do so in the last couple of years.

As such, South Australia has, as a result of this scheme, been recognised as a trailblazer in recycling, leading to other states and territories introducing their own CDS. Beverage containers currently make up only 3 per cent of the South Australian litter stream, which is substantially less than in other states and territories. In 2017-18, almost 603 million containers, amounting to 42,913 tonnes of material, was recovered by collection depots for recycling—an approximately 78 per cent recovery rate.

The scheme has been virtually unchanged since its introduction with the exception of an increase in the deposit from 5¢ to 10¢ in 2008 and some minor amendments. Much has changed since 1977, including types of containers, consumer choices, technology and markets for recycled materials. It is therefore important to keep looking for opportunities to improve the CDS, both in terms of its role in recycling and in litter reduction.

This government instigated a review of the CDS with the intention of modernising it in line with world best practice and to better reflect the objectives of a circular economy. On 13 January 2019, the EPA released a scoping paper, 'Improving South Australia's Recycling Makes Cents', inviting public feedback on ways to improve the current CDS and to build on its historic successes. The EPA received more than 1,000 responses to a YourSAy survey based on the scoping paper and 97 written responses. Eighty-four per cent of respondents to the survey thought that more types of containers should be included in the scheme.

This was also a key recommendation from the CDS stakeholder reference group, established by the EPA to inform the CDS review. The reference group is made up of members representing a range of interests within the CDS, including collection depots, super collectors, manufacturers—including the wine industry—retailers, waste industry associations and non-government organisations.

The EPA board hosted a CDS roundtable summit on 21 May 2019, where some of the key issues, including governance of and opportunities to modernise the CDS, were further explored, with attendees from local government, collection depots, super collectors and business and retail representatives. There was overwhelming support for industry to increase the contribution of CDS to resource recovery and a circular economy, including by expanding its scope and for change in the way the CDS is governed.

The EPA is leading national discussions on opportunities to better align jurisdictional schemes. These national discussions, together with EPA board summit outcomes, responses received to the scoping paper consultation and advice from the stakeholder reference group, will inform a discussion paper on options for changes to the CDS to be released for consultation in the 2019-20 financial year. As part of the recycling transition package announced in the budget, the EPA will receive $400,000 to be used to research and gather information to inform the review of the CDS and subsequent policy development.

Dr CLOSE: In Budget Paper 5, on page 44, there is a list of increased fees and new fees for poultry farmers and renewable energy facilities. What discussions had occurred with poultry farmers and with people who run renewable energy facilities about starting to have levies paid to the EPA?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Firstly, these fees will not be introduced until 1 July 2020. Consultation did not occur with poultry farmers and renewable energy organisations prior to the announcement in the budget that these fees would be pursued by the Environment Protection Authority; however, a very clear statement has been made to industry that they will be involved in the development of what these fees and licences will look like, and they will be engaged throughout the process. Those discussions have begun in earnest.

Dr CLOSE: Given that there is an estimate of how much that is likely to raise for the EPA, based on the regulatory effort that the EPA is putting in, is it possible to tell the parliament how much the average poultry farmer and renewable energy facility will pay and also what the highest amount will be for any particular operator in both categories?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The fee regime has not yet been established, so the cost recovery figure, which is approximately $180,000, was based on the effort within the Environment Protection Authority that goes towards policing the activities of these entities at the moment. We believe that was approximately two FTEs, which is quite a conservative estimate, and the figure of $180,000 was established on the basis that that is the cost of the wages and the on-costs of those two FTEs. The licensing regime and fee structure will be established in a way that sees that cost recovered in consultation with the affected two industries, but we do not have a figure on what those fees will be like at the moment.

Dr CLOSE: We might find ourselves having this conversation in a year's time then. If we can now go back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 164 has a workforce summary. I see that in 2017-18 there were 215.8 FTE, and the budget for 2019-20 is 197.3 FTE. I appreciate that this may be taken on notice, but which are the positions that have gone in that reduction? What are their job titles and what were they doing?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will take that on notice and provide the deputy leader with a list of the positions.

Dr CLOSE: How much was spent on TVSPs and does the same arrangement apply as for other departments, that the TVSPs were paid for by Treasury?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is the same arrangement, with the central package to be funded by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The total amount provided to the Environment Protection Authority to fund its TVSPs was $2.052 million in the 2018-19 financial year.

Dr CLOSE: At the bottom of that page, there appears to be a large jump in the net cost of services for the environment and radiation program. Can the minister explain that jump? At the bottom of page 164 there is the net cost of services of $16 million in 2017-18. There will be a reason, but I am curious about what it is. I am pretty sure it has not gone on the CE's salary.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is where the increase in the waste levy is captured. We see an additional $9.8 million increase in the 2019-20 budget for income, compared with the estimated income, as a result of the increases in the solid waste levy and additional revenue from new cost recovery measures. In the previous budget, we talked about a licensing regime for fuel tanks and service stations, as you might recall, and that did not come in. Similar to the poultry farm and renewables in this budget, that has taken a year to come in. That is projected into this budget. The increase in the solid waste levy, plus the service station fees flow through and create an increase.

Mr BASHAM: I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 167. Will the minister outline for the committee the Environment Protection Authority's release of the 2018 State of the Environment Report?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, member for Finniss. The Environment Protection Act 1993 requires the Environment Protection Authority to prepare and publish at least every five years a report on the state of the South Australian environment. The report is an important piece of work and provides a wealth of information about the challenges facing our state that can be used to help shape government policy and actions in the future and stimulate discussions in our community about our unique and precious environment.

The EPA facilitates the collation of data for the State of the Environment Report in collaboration with a number of other government departments and conservation organisations. The 2018 State of the Environment Report was released on 19 November 2018 and is the seventh published in South Australia since 1988. The report was released as a website, accompanied by a short video and a printed summary report.

An EPA board subcommittee, chaired by the EPA's chief executive and including two members of the board, the chief executive of the Department for Environment and Water, the presiding member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and a nominee of the chief executive of the Conservation Council, provided direction for the development of the report. An interagency reference group, including the Department for Environment and Water, Primary Industries and Regions SA, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, the Local Government Association of SA, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, also supported the development of the report.

Regular engagement with conservation organisations and their views helped shape the report and provided opportunity to debate important environmental issues facing the state. The 2018 report presents an analysis of trends in the condition of natural resources and environmental quality, and includes case studies, local perspectives and iconic images. It covers five themes: climate, air, inland waters, land and coast.

A feature of the 2018 report is its inclusion of opinion pieces, by experts Professor Corey Bradshaw from Flinders University, Professor Justin Brookes from the University of Adelaide and Professor Mark Western, Director of the Institute for Social Science Research, on three topics: biodiversity, coast protection and aquatic ecosystems. The report highlights important environmental issues for South Australia and makes six recommendations for government to consider in areas covering climate change, biodiversity, coast protection, waste management, aquatic ecosystems and environmental information.

I am considering the report's findings and recommendations in detail and will report the government's response to the 2018 State of the Environment Report to the house.

Dr CLOSE: On Budget Paper 4, page 167, dot point five refers to delivering pollution avoidance and reduction programs for water, air, noise and waste. What activities occurred in the last year, since we discussed this last year, to increase the management of the noise that comes from Adelaide Brighton that affects the local residents?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will pass to Mr Peter Dolan to provide the house with an answer.

Mr DOLAN: We are working on a program with Adelaide Brighton Cement and in consultation with the community to do a couple of things. One is to identify sources of noise, and they have been doing noise monitoring to find exactly the source of the particular tones that concern the community, and then doing an environment improvement program under their licence to try to address those. That work has been going for some time. They have had an environment improvement program previously to do with dust in particular and particulate emissions, but they are turning towards noise now. It is fair to say that it can be a bit slow, and the community would like that fixed as quickly as possible, but they are working through that under their licence.

Dr CLOSE: Can the minister provide the breakdown of complaints received by the EPA in the last year across South Australia—I am no longer just asking about Adelaide Brighton—relating to air quality, noise, waste and any other categories that are used by the EPA in collecting their complaints information?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy to take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: What testing has the EPA done on bore water contamination in Largs North near the fire station?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that under the principle of polluter paying, the MFS as the owner of that site must undertake the appropriate testing, and then that information is provided online for the community or anyone who is interested to take a look at it.

Dr CLOSE: Is that provided via the EPA in any way? Does the EPA provide that publicly?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will pass to Mr Circelli for that.

Mr CIRCELLI: The information is overseen by the EPA regulators. We are regulating the process. We have an approved voluntary assessment program from the MFS that we are regulating, like any other company, any other authority. There is a number of other parties as well in the Lefevre Peninsula area that we are also regulating in a similar way. This information is public register-available information as well. The requirement to inform the public also rests with the operator.

Dr CLOSE: Are you able to give me an update on what the advice is on the use of bore water, what restrictions there are in that Largs North area?

Mr CIRCELLI: That is something that we are still waiting to see in terms of anything more specific than usual, but we do have, of course, our annual program, where we talk to all people, particularly in the metropolitan area, to ensure that they do test the bore water. We have numerous assessment areas across the Adelaide area, across the state, and we obviously progressively work through those to look at where we require prohibition to take water.

Once the understanding of the plume is developed in the Largs North area, that may well be something that we proceed down, but we are still at the early stage of assessment on that. We again remind the community that if they are taking, firstly, there is a lot of information they can get in terms of potential sources in their local area on our website through our public register index, so they can get a bit of a sense of the likely risk. We would echo the Department of Health's advice that these bores should be tested and tested regularly to make sure they are safe.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, is there a regular forum between the EPA and the Department of Health on some of the issues that appear to have arisen more recently, such as PFAS, which is really in the last few years that people have become particularly concerned? Is there a forum where those discussions occur and you are kept up to date?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will pass to Mr Circelli again.

Mr CIRCELLI: The forums occur on a number of levels. We have national forums with enHealth, who are the experts around public health that provide that input into the network, on the environmental protection chiefs, the heads of EPA. We have a senior representative from enHealth in all meetings of the heads of EPA, and PFAS is a very common issue of discussion across the country with all the states and territories.

At the local level, we also have a memorandum of understanding with the Department for Health on all issues to do with setting prohibition areas. For instance, we seek advice first from our public health colleagues. That relationship is very strong, very effective. We make sure that we defer to the public health experts in relation to the meaning of the numbers once we receive them.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, I wonder if you could give an update on the dredging operation that has been occurring, or is about to occur, at Outer Harbor with the Flinders Ports.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will provide something of an update and then for specifics I might pass to my colleagues from the EPA. Members would be aware that there has been considerable interest from the community, conservation sector and some industry members regarding the dredging which is being undertaken by Flinders Ports. I understand that it has been undertaken for a couple of months now due to the particular desired time of the year that it has to be undertaken on. There was quite a bit of community consultation prior to that, and now I understand their work is underway.

There is almost real-time measurement of the turbidity in the water that occurs as a result of that. I understand that the equipment and technology used to undertake the dredging in 2019 is far advanced than when that previously occurred in the early 2000s. Issues such as loss of seagrass and habitat at the site of the dredge is considerably reduced compared with what it may have been historically.

It is also worth saying that the monitoring that has been undertaken has been, in our view, very accurate in that we have been able to see times when the turbidity and the plume from the dredge dump has got into a position of getting close to limits of concern, partly due to weather conditions and ocean environments. Because of the very close monitoring the dredge has been able to be scaled back or stopped at particular times, so it is heartening to know that the level of oversight is probably considerably more than it was historically, largely as a result of better technologies.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately, time has expired. There being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio Environment Protection Agency completed.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr V. Levitzke, Chief Executive, Green Industries South Australia.

Mr I. Harvey, Director, Strategy and Policy, Green Industries South Australia.

Ms C. Yin, Manager, Finance, Green Industries South Australia.

Mr J. Wheeler, Manager, Government Business, Green Industries South Australia.

Ms M. Kreinhold, Director, Business, Green Industries South Australia.

The CHAIR: We will move to the portfolio of Zero Waste/Green Industries SA. Minister, I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 2. Could you please update the committee with your advisers and make an opening statement if you so wish.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for your patience this afternoon as we enter the last of the elements of my portfolios. I would like to introduce the departmental officers who are assisting me today: Vaughan Levitzke, Chief Executive of Green Industries SA; Ian Harvey, Director, Strategy and Policy; and Catherine Yin, Manager, Finance. Behind me is Josh Wheeler, Manager, Government Business and Marcia Kreinhold, Director, Business.

Green Industries SA, otherwise known as GISA, is an enabler and driver of change supporting the development of the circular economy through diverse collaborations which improve productivity, resilience, resource efficiency and the environment. In 2018-19 the Marshall Liberal government demonstrated its commitment to practical on-the-ground outcomes through its budget provisions. As such, GISA implemented a range of funding programs that facilitated investment in South Australia's resource recovery sector, creating jobs and diverting more material from landfill to productive uses.

A key initiative implemented by the agency in 2018-19 was the government's support package to industry and local government in the face of changing international market conditions for recyclable materials. The implementation of strict standards and bans on the import of recyclable materials by China, as well as other South-East Asian destinations, has created a number of challenges and opportunities for this sector. Over 2018-19, GISA implemented the government's $12.4 million support package that comprised loans, grants and subsidies to industry and local government as well as a statewide recycling education campaign.

GISA also launched the Which Bin recycling education campaign that commenced in May this year, and I have received very positive feedback from the community about its messaging. Another key initiative for GISA during 2018-19 is their work to address the impacts of single-use plastic products. In January this year I released the 'Turning the tide on single-use plastic products' discussion paper to seek feedback from the community on this matter. I look forward to working with GISA and stakeholders in progressing this work further.

In 2018-19, GISA invested in a second commercialisation of innovation program with South Australian-based company Innovyz, building on the success of the first program which commenced in 2016-17. The waste and recycling sectors of the circular economy have been identified as having high potential for commercialisation of new technologies and innovations and for generating economic activity for the state. Some exciting technologies and innovations have been developed through the program, and I understand that a national search is underway to identify potential ideas and innovations to participate in the second program.

South Australia is recognised as a national and global leader in waste management resource recovery and the circular economy. In 2018-19 GISA delivered a global leadership program on the circular economy attracting participants from India, Japan and other Australian jurisdictions. During the program leaders and decision-makers from other jurisdictions were presented to by South Australian experts in their field. They also undertook site visits to see the circular economy in practice in SA businesses.

These included commercial composting, large-scale household recycling, manufacturing of wood/plastics composite products from waste materials, community education, container deposit facilities, and recycled water irrigation. South Australian businesses and organisations participated in the program, opening opportunities to export their knowledge and technology. A second global leadership program was held just last week, and I understand another is being held in February 2020.

Building from the success of the 2018-19 state budget, GISA will be releasing the state's next waste strategy covering the period 2020 to 2025 in accordance with the Green Industries SA Act 2004. The strategy will be released for a period of public consultation. GISA is also developing a food waste strategy for South Australia that will be released in 2019-20. That will focus on activities that reduce waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and drive change in industry, local government and the community.

In 2019-20 GISA will be implementing the government's Waste and Recovery Modernisation and Council Transition Package that will build the state's capacities further in this sector. Under this sector $10 million has been allocated over four years towards supporting investment and industry and local government resource recovery infrastructure. This is complemented by $2 million over four years that has been allocated to the EPA to further strengthen waste regulation and support the review of South Australian's container deposit legislation. The package will ensure we maximise the full economic return of the sector and generate better environmental outcomes.

I look forward to continuing to work with GISA on these exciting initiatives in 2019-20, and I also look forward to working with parliament on legislation to address the impacts of single-use plastic products.

Dr CLOSE: By way of an opening statement I would like to thank the staff, the advisers here for the minister. Thank you for the work you are doing, in particular getting ready for this half an hour at the end of the day. You were also here a little earlier, which was terrific because you heard me start to ask questions in EPA that more properly belong to you.

My first question refers to Budget Paper 5, page 45, and the increase in the solid waste levy. I am interested in what target you have for the volume and weight of solid waste going to landfill over the next few years. What is the projection and what is your expectation?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In recent years the actual modelling has shown that with the rise of the solid waste levy there has been a decline in waste going to landfill and a subsequent rise in recycled, composted or reused waste as well. In the last year or two, however, that trend has been seen to plateau in the historic modelling, and waste to landfill has not gone down.

Even in the most recent year it had up-ticked ever so slightly, and that was of great concern, given our historic national and international leadership in this space, to potentially see a reversal in the historically positive trajectory of waste management in this state. Obviously, that was part of the rationale for increasing the solid waste levy because we have seen, historically, as it has risen, waste and landfill has dropped.

The area which we expect to decline as a result of the focus on the increase in the levy is around municipal waste, largely: in most parts of the state, the red bin and, in a couple of council jurisdictions, the blue bin. That remains in a place where we think there is opportunity for statewide improvement, particularly in the area of food waste, which makes up between 40 and 44 per cent of that residual municipal waste bin.

Food waste is heavy, it is wet and it attracts lots of levy across South Australia's councils. So our projections are that, if councils can get food waste out of the general waste bin—and we think it is relatively easy to do compared with some products; there is an alternative pathway there being the food organics and green waste bin—if we can concentrate on education, working with local councils and in particular apply funding, which the budget includes, towards food waste strategy, we can shift a considerable proportion of that food waste out of the municipal waste stream and into the compostable stream. That is where the next-step waste will be.

Dr CLOSE: How many of the 68 councils do not have a food waste collection system or a green waste collection system that could be adapted to food waste? I am happy if you need to take that on notice to get the details.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will take that on notice. I understand that the majority of South Australians have access to this because all councils in metropolitan Adelaide, and usually the councils in the near metropolitan areas as well, which includes the Fleurieu etc., have access to this. The councils that do not tend to be in the farther-flung parts of the state because of particular challenges around not having the services and infrastructure in place.

It was heartening, although hard fought, to see the City of Onkaparinga say that they are moving from a monthly green waste collection, which really precludes quality food waste diversion—getting 12 pick-ups a year just does not work for communities. From 1 January this year, and with the support of GISA, the City of Onkaparinga will finally come on board with fortnightly food waste collection. Given that we are the largest council with some 200,000 residents, that in itself will see quite a change in the southern suburbs.

Dr CLOSE: What modelling does the government have on how much the waste levy needs to increase to see a reduction in the waste going to landfill?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We do not have any specific modelling. This has proven very hard at a national level to model. The waste to landfill has peaks and troughs to do with development approaches by different councils and the lack of consistency, even climatic factors. However, since the introduction of the levy some two decades ago there has been a general trend downwards when the levy has been increased. That trend has been accelerated with the exception of the last 12 to 18 months of the recording period when a plateau and a small rise took place.

Dr CLOSE: As part of the calculation for the increase in funding coming into the Green Industry Fund, because the levy is going up, has there also been a calculation that there might be a reduction in the amount of waste going? It would be even more if we were at this year's amount of waste and the levy was going up—it would be even higher—but it has been trimmed because there is an expectation? If that is the case, can that be quantified for me; if not now, on notice?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will take that on notice. Certainly, as the minister, I am very conscious that that is a desirable policy outcome that should occur, and we have discussed that. I do not have that modelling on me, but we will take it on notice.

Dr CLOSE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, the Green Industries section. The Green Industry Fund itself is not—

The CHAIR: Sorry, what page there?

Dr CLOSE: I am looking for the page because I had looked at the waste levy with the EPA and I had that page, but then I was told that the Green Industry Fund belongs to you but there is not the word 'Green Industry Fund' in that section.

The CHAIR: Page 183, member for Port Adelaide.

Dr CLOSE: If we take page 184, perhaps, as the page—

The CHAIR: I will take that as well.

Dr CLOSE: —that covers the summary of all of the money that comes, I will ask the question that I started to ask in the EPA section. What was the opening balance of the Green Industry Fund at the start of 2018-19?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The current balance at 30 June 2019 was $131.803 million.

Dr CLOSE: And at the start of 2018-19, so 1 July 2018?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It was $120.35 million.

Dr CLOSE: Of the funds expended in 2018-19, what percentage was used to fund climate change initiatives, what percentage was used to fund initiatives to support waste and recycling, and what percentage was used to fund other environmental projects? Again, if you need to take that on notice I understand.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I could probably get that, but it would take the rest of your time, so we will take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Yes, you would have to calculate the percentages from the—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, we will take that on notice, no problem. We do have those figures.

Dr CLOSE: What work is being done with the waste management industry to increase the capacity to manage recycling in South Australia? I say that in particular in the context of the China Sword strategy and other countries now refusing to take contaminated plastic waste. What is being done to build up our industry?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There have been a few different approaches. If we look back to the China Sword assistance package, which was announced I think in May 2018, that was some $12 million towards a range of projects. Some of the those projects were aimed particularly at enhancing the sophistication and innovation within the South Australian industry and a whole range of grants went out, as well as existing GISA infrastructure grants, which are on a sort of rolling program of being offered to industry.

That enabled a whole range of infrastructure and technological upgrades to enhance the quality of our waste management. Some examples that come off the top of my head include a $3 million grant to Recycling Plastics Australia, which has invested in a plastics recycling facility down at Kilburn, really ensuring that South Australia has one of the leading plastics recycling facilities in the nation, if not the leading, and enabling us to go so much further in terms of dealing with our waste at home as opposed to sending it interstate or overseas.

Bear in mind, South Australia did not have a huge history of sending things overseas. It happened because it was a commodity that was worth something, but we did have a reasonable level of integrity in the waste management system in South Australia to start with. This assistance package has upskilled the industry and provided support to undertake these upgrades.

As well as that, $3 million went to Recycling Plastics Australia. There was $8.803 million towards the construction of new and upgraded materials recovery and processing facilities right across the state, particularly across the metropolitan area as part of the recycling infrastructure grants; $2.186 million went towards the Trade Waste Initiative in grants towards reducing trade waste load and volume for South Australian food and beverage businesses.

There have been a couple of other things which contribute to this: $750,000 goes towards the Commercialisation of Innovation Program, which was run by Innovyz a couple of years ago. There is another round occurring shortly, or it is underway at the moment, to run a second commercialisation program for waste recycling and the circular economy. Rather than just providing grants to existing businesses, that is trying to get more innovative businesses off the ground to make South Australia the heart of recycling, re-use and composting nationally.

Then there is funding towards education because all of this will only work if there is a reasonably high level of integrity when it comes to kerbside performance. That simply means putting things in the right bin at the right time. Green waste and food organics go in the green bin and as much recycling as possible goes into the yellow bin, reducing what is available in that general waste bin. Education is a big part of that, so we provide support to industry to increase the quality and the availability of cutting-edge technology and equipment.

But it all has to be backed up by a high level of education on the ground in partnership with councils. The main example of that is the whichbin.com.au advertising program with internet, print media and TV ads which is really trying to lift the knowledge and understanding of effective waste management across the South Australian population.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, how much funding has been identified for councils to assist with their management of the impact of the changes in waste management, partly as a result of what has happened internationally? What is that expenditure for?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When the government initiated our response to the China Sword situation, we were quite open about the fact that we were not going to write cheques bailing out councils. We did not think that was an appropriate use of taxpayers' money in South Australia. I am on the record saying that on a number of occasions, particularly because councils benefited from waste as a commodity and the price of that commodity dropped. Some councils were negatively impacted by that but other councils which had not taken such an audacious gamble on some of these things were not badly affected.

I know in my own electorate, the City of Holdfast Bay and the City of Marion were not impacted negatively because they had not gone down that track but other councils had, one being the City of Onkaparinga to the south. That is what happens when you play with free enterprise, I suppose.

However, we certainly said that our assistance package was available to councils to apply for, often in collaboration or partnership with private entities or entities that were run in a commercial way but often owned by councils such as SRWRA in the south and NAWMA in the northern areas of the city.

In 2018-19, GISA committed $3.16 million in funding to local government and organisations, including regional subsidiaries and individual councils. In 2019-20, local government will be able to apply for approximately $8.9 million in funding under the Green Industries SA programs. Green Industries SA has a service level agreement with the Local Government Association of South Australia in which annual funding is provided to employ a person who gives waste management support to councils.

I mentioned the City of Onkaparinga earlier moving to a fortnightly green waste pick-up, which we greatly welcome and significantly encouraged. Because the council has decided to take that decision, that will be supported by grants from Green Industries SA to support the distribution of kitchen caddies and the like. It has started to hear me.

Dr CLOSE: Siri wants to get involved.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Siri does not understand my accent though, so it does not work for anyone. It is a disaster.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Siri is not alone.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will keep talking, so that you—

The CHAIR: Order! I know the member for Kavel has a question and I would like to get to him before the time expires.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Anyway, I think—

Dr CLOSE: Your question might be quick.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think I have said enough. Anyway, we are doing lots.

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you, Chair. I certainly appreciate your indulgence. Can I take the minister to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 186. Can the minister provide further information to the committee regarding the 'Turning the Tide on Single-use Plastic Products' discussion paper?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Kavel for his question. I know he is passionate about reducing waste and I know he gets lots of representations from people who live in his constituency about the need for government to deal with the blight that is single-use plastics on our environment.

While plastics do play an incredibly important role in our economy and daily lives, too often the way they are produced, used and discarded harms the environment. Globally, it is estimated that at least eight million tonnes of plastics end up in our oceans every year.

Earlier this year, I released the 'Turning the Tide on Single-use Plastic Products' discussion paper, seeking feedback regarding single-use plastic products and their impact. We received an overwhelming response from the South Australian community, with 3,500 public responses and 68 written submissions in the six-week consultation period. Responses to that discussion paper indicated overwhelming support that people wanted something done about single-use plastics.

The Marshall Liberal government is committed to keeping our state in a position of leadership when it comes to waste management and resource recovery, and on 6 July this year I announced the government's approach to addressing the impacts of single-use plastic products, taking into account feedback from the turning the tide discussion paper.

The government's approach includes further consultation with business, industry, local government and interest groups via a stakeholder working group regarding the impacts of phasing out single-use plastic products. We will develop legislation to phase out certain single-use plastic products and establish a framework to include other items in the future. We will establish plastic-free precincts to trial the phase-out of certain single-use plastic products in defined areas within our community.

Noting that some single-use items are already the subject of action amongst the community and amongst certain businesses, as well as the availability of alternative products, the following items have been identified by government as the first items to be considered for inclusion in the legislation.

On commencement of the legislation, we will ban plastic straws, plastic cutlery and plastic drink stirrers and, following a 12-month transition period, takeaway expanded polystyrene cups, food and beverage containers and products made from oxo-degradable plastic. Plastics with additives that result in them easily breaking down into smaller fragments will be phased out. A summary of the government's approach, as well as the consultation summary report and other information, is available on the GISA website.

In relation to plastic straws, the government acknowledges that some members of our community rely on them on a daily basis for their particular needs, particularly those within the disability community. This important issue will be considered by the task force to ensure that appropriate exemptions are in place, and also will be piloted in the plastic-free precincts, which will give us the opportunity to get ahead of the game when it comes to working out how the phase-out will occur in a broader sense across the state.

In drafting the legislation, the government can include provisions to ensure that people who rely on plastic straws for reasons such as a disability or medical condition can still access them and are not adversely impacted. I look forward to undertaking further consultation later this year on draft legislation to address the impacts of single-use plastic products.

The CHAIR: Member for Port Adelaide, you have five seconds.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. One last question: page 186, same reference as previously. Much of the problem that occurs with single-use plastics that are then thrown away rather than being recycled is that they largely end up in the ocean. Does the minister have a view about the state of the gross pollutant traps along the beachfront in Adelaide and whether there is a role for state government to play in upgrading their quality and performance?

The CHAIR: A very brief answer, minister, please.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Very quick. This is something that is raised with me by councils, councillors and people in the community from time to time. I think it is something that ought to be looked at, obviously in partnership with local government that has responsibility for these items of infrastructure, and I am happy to do so.

The CHAIR: Alas, there are no further questions. I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of Zero Waste/Green Industries SA and the estimate of payments for the Department for Environment and Water and administered items for the Department for Environment and Water completed. I lay before the committee a draft report.

Mr PEDERICK: I move:

That the draft report be the report of the committee.

Motion carried.

At 17:31 the committee concluded.