Legislative Council, $5,926,000

House of Assembly, $8,260,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $13,157,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $3,550,000

State Governor's Establishment, $4,476,000

Auditor-General's Department, $18,518,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $377,085,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $20,505,000

Membership:

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

Hon. D.J. Speirs substituted for Ms Pratt.

Mr Odenwalder substituted for Ms Clancy.

Minister:

Hon. P.B. Malinauskas, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly.

Mr D. Walker, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Gorvett, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Executive Director, Communities and Corporate, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

Mr I. McGlen, Deputy Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Department.

Ms M. Stint, Finance Manager, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr M. Warren, Chief Executive, SA Motorsport Board.

Mr S. Whetton, Chief Executive, Office of the South Australian Productivity Commission.

Ms C. Jamieson, Principal Policy Officer, Infrastructure SA.

Mr R. Morris, Chief Executive, Premier's Delivery Unit.

The CHAIR: Welcome, everybody. Welcome to the Premier and welcome to the opposition leader. It is not Siberia, but it is estimates. The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the Premier and the opposition leader have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Premier and the opposition leader confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate? All good.

Changes to the membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the Premier undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answer to questions mailbox no later than Friday, 2 September 2022.

I propose to allow both the Premier and the opposition leader to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, if they so wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. All questions are to be directed to the Premier, not the Premier's advisers. The Premier may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced.

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper. I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting.

Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within Parliament House via the webstream link to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination, the portfolios of: Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services, State Governor's Establishment, Auditor-General's Department, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Infrastructure SA and Productivity Commission. The minister appearing is the Premier.

I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Premier to make a statement, if he so wishes, and to introduce his advisers. I also call on the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement, if the member so wishes. I call on members for questions.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and thank you for presiding over today's proceedings. I will start by introducing my colleagues who are with me. Obviously, as everyone knows, on my right is Rick Crump, who of course is Clerk of Parliament House. Behind me to my left is Mr Damien Walker, Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and to his right is Steven Woolhouse, Executive Director for Communities and Corporate within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

In terms of an opening statement, I have only a very brief one just to make some basic points. Firstly, I just want to pass on my gratitude in this forum to all of the public servants who have worked so incredibly hard to be able to facilitate me having the appropriate information to be able to answer the opposition's and others' questions to the best of our ability. That of course has occurred in the context of a budget being put together in very quick time. Normally, the budget process for government runs in the order of about eight months. We put together a budget in the space of approximately eight weeks. That has been a very significant undertaking.

Changing governments naturally causes a degree of disruption within the Public Service, but I want to thank all those public servants who have helped facilitate the change of government in as orderly and as smooth a fashion as possible. That is important not just for the new government but important for the running of the state. To then layer on top of that having to put together a budget in quick time has been a significant undertaking.

I could not possibly overstate how much midnight oil has been burned in recent weeks to do that and then, of course, leading into estimates. I just want to put on the record my gratitude for that transition and then also the exercise following. It is the government's very firm determination to deliver on our election commitments, and we see the budget that was handed down only a couple of weeks ago as being very much consistent with our election commitments.

The final thing I thought I would make reference to is that there was a change of time in terms of when this estimates was originally going to be scheduled. I think it was going to be last Friday; it was moved to today because of the national cabinet proceedings that were not originally known when we contemplated the original timetable. I just want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and his team for accommodating that request for the move. That being said, I very much look forward to this process. It is often a dry one, but it is a fundamentally important one and I do not want to take up any more of the opposition's time accordingly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just to reiterate the Premier's gratefulness to the public servants who have been involved in what is often a labour-intensive process and one in which lots of information is compiled that may not necessarily be called on today. I am grateful for their contribution to what is an important part of the scrutiny and accountability of the government of the day. So thank you to them.

The CHAIR: If we could now move to questions.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Okay, I will begin, thank you, Mr Chair. My first question is from Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, the Premier and Cabinet program summary, income, expenses and FTEs. I have a large number of questions from this part of the budget. My first question is in relation to the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. My question is to the Premier: what is the duration of the contract of the newly appointed CEO of DPC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am more than happy to jump straight into that, but does that mean we are skipping over Government House and Parliament House in terms of questions? Because if we are, we can bring—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do have questions later on in that area; it is whether we get to them or not. I am not putting significant priority on those—no offence to Mr Crump.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Normally, we would go through them in their respective order, but do you want to go straight into the DPC part?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, go straight to DPC, if that is okay.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, sure. Similarly for the Auditor-General?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There will be questions for the Auditor-General later as well but they are in the second half of my priority. Again, no offence to the Auditor-General's team.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In that context, what was the question again?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the duration of the contract for the newly appointed CEO of DPC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Five years.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was there any selection committee or selection process for appointing Mr Walker?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I turned my mind to who I thought would be the best person to be able to lead the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I had contemplated a number of candidates and spoke to more than one, and ultimately formed the view that Mr Walker was the best person equipped to serve the state in this important capacity.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was any external recruitment agency used for the appointment process?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the Premier consider any other candidates for the position? Well, you have already provided an answer to that, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the Premier consult the Queensland Premier about the appointment?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Were any other referees consulted?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How does the Premier justify a remuneration package for his selected appointee of $697,000 per annum, when it represents an 11.5 per cent increase in the package of the previous incumbent at a time of significant wage restraint?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Very simply, because that is what it costs to be able to get who I believe to be the best person to be able to serve this state in this important capacity. The Leader of the Opposition would well appreciate that chief executives of departments are, by their nature, expensive. That is consistent with most leadership positions of a significant nature in the public sector.

This is just one of a number of considerations that forms my judgement when it comes to remuneration packages. The first thing is breadth of experience; the second thing is the existing salary that people are on; thirdly, you have to acknowledge that when people are moving across jurisdictions that brings with it its own expenses; and, fourthly, what chief executives are paid for those respective roles around the commonwealth.

On that score, all those things combined, it allowed me to form the view that that is an appropriate level of remuneration. Naturally, to any member of the South Australian public, numbers that have hundreds of thousands involved capture people's attention. That is utterly appropriate, particularly when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. But I would simply point out that when it comes to the chief executive officer of the department of the premier and cabinet in other jurisdictions, the sum being paid in South Australia is actually quite modest in comparison to some other jurisdictions.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This next question you may wish to take part of it on notice, if not all of it. Can the Premier provide the following information about other executive employment in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, including the number of executives employed in 2021-22 and the number of executive positions budgeted for in 2022-23 in the following classifications: EXECOE, EXECOF, commissioner, SAES2 and SAES1?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to go away and have a look at that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the ratio of executive to non-executive officers across the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, I am happy to take that on notice for you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the ratio of executive to non-executive officers in the Cabinet Office?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If you are looking for specific ratios, I am advised that we are best taking that on notice and getting that for you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is fair enough. How many of the 50 executive officer positions across government to be cut will come from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Obviously, as the leader is aware, there is a substantial savings requirement that has been imposed upon DPC that is in excess of $60 million across the forward estimates. Naturally, the government also has its target of cuts to executive positions to the tune of $50 million. It is within the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to determine how that $60-plus million savings obligation will be realised. Naturally, salaries will form a component of that, but, as it currently stands, there is no specific number of executives that have been sighted to be removed from within DPC.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Premier expect any executives within DPC to go as part of this process as it is worked through?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think the short answer to that question is yes, but the precise number is to be determined.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the role of the newly appointed customer experience officer Mike Diakomichalis?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that he is currently the executive director of the customer experience section. I have been advised that a piece of work is currently being undertaken within the department to scrutinise the work that that individual is responsible for, and will be responsible for into the future, and the function within that particular section. I should also add that that particular unit within the DPC is not Robinson Crusoe in that regard. What will not surprise the leader, or anyone else who is familiar with the $60 million saving coming DPC's way, is that that will necessarily mean that a lot of functions within DPC are being closely examined, and that is all but one of them.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. Are you able to advise the committee what the salary of Mr Diakomichalis is?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice that I have received is that the long-held practice that has been in place across governments, of both political persuasions, is that at that level of the public sector the specific salary for each individual is not disclosed. Clearly, when it comes to the salaries of chief executive officers that is publicly disclosed, and all appropriate scrutiny applied, but at that level within the public sector the individual's salary is not disclosed, rather the general bandwidth, and that remains the case in regard to the gentleman to which you refer.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you able to disclose the classification—SAES1, SAES2?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice that I have received is that it is likely to be SAES2, but I have to double-check that, for the purposes of accuracy, and come back to you on that.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We are not aware, which probably will not surprise you given that appointment was made under the former government, under the former chief executive. We could potentially go back and look at historical records if you wanted us to do that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, I am fine with that one. Moving on from the customer experience area to the efficiency dividend, how will the operations of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet be affected by the imposition of the government's 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In as small a way as possible. As I alluded to earlier, there is an important piece of work being undertaken, as you would reasonably expect, given the savings obligation upon DPC, and the job the new chief executive officer now has before them is to deliver those savings in such a way that does not do much inconvenience to those people who are performing those tasks but, just as importantly, the people of South Australia.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Premier intend to conduct annual performance reviews with each of his ministers?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I intend to conduct performance reviews in a traditional format with chief executives. Obviously, since being elected, I have been determined to meet with each and every one of the chief executives who are ultimately appointed by me, whether or not they are new appointments or old appointments. I think I have now been able to do that for almost all of them bar a couple of exceptions.

In terms of ministers, ministers enjoy permanent scrutiny, as the leader well understands. One of the reasons why I did not take on any specific portfolios when we established the new government was so that I could perform the important task of monitoring the performance of not just the government and respective agencies but also ministers as well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As the Premier is responsible for approving all chief executive appointments, I want to ask: what is the duration of the contract of the CEO of the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia, Mr Sam Crafter?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Five years.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was there any selection committee or selection process for appointing Mr Crafter and, if there was, could the Premier outline it?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, it was largely the same process that was applied to the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of DPC. To be more specific, having established the need for such an office, I and other members of the cabinet were particularly keen on the candidacy of Mr Sam Crafter, and we approached him to apply for that role.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the Premier consider any other candidates for that position?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Mr Crafter was the primary candidate for that position.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given the importance that the Premier obviously—appropriately, given the scale of the election commitment—attributes to this hydrogen project, why did the government not initiate a national and international recruitment process for this position?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Because we were satisfied that here in South Australia we had an outstanding candidate in Mr Sam Crafter, who understands the complexity of the task but, more importantly, the complexity and the nuance associated toward South Australia's role within the National Electricity Market. Ultimately, Hydrogen Power South Australia intends to obviously produce energy in the form of electricity, albeit from a particularly important and unique source, and having that background knowledge is critical.

The other thing of course about Mr Crafter's candidacy that stood out to me and the government was his track record of delivery in short time frames. One of the principal considerations that informed the judgement around Mr Crafter's candidacy was not just his record but also the ability to get him started very quickly. I put high value on that in the context of the fact that we have a massive job to do between now and the election to realise our ambitions for the hydrogen production facility and power plant to be online by the next election.

It is a tight time line. This is a complex project and it is sophisticated in terms of its engineering ambition. We are absolutely convinced in everything that has occurred since the election, and all the briefings and meetings I have had since the election have only given me more confidence, that this is an ambition that can be realised, but one of the challenges that we confront is time.

As the leader well understands, four years goes very quickly and it is very easy to tread water in government; it is very easy to wrap yourself in process at the expense of an outcome. Clearly, process is important and needs to be adhered to, but in respect of the appointments of chief executive officers, that falls within my purview and my responsibility. I have to accept that responsibility and execute judgement accordingly, with a view to achieving our ambitions.

To be frank, the size of this challenge is acute. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and to any South Australian that they can rest assured that when I think through appointments of that nature I do so thoroughly. It is not a decision you make lightly, given the importance of it to the future of the state.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You mentioned Mr Crafter's track record that led you to believe that he had the capacity to do the job well. Would you be able to outline what that track record is, specific to the appointment?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The best illustration of that would be the delivering of the big battery. Of course, that undertaking was done in a very short time. During the course of 2017, when the then state government committed itself to building the big battery at Hornsdale, lots of people ridiculed it and said it could not be done. It received all the criticism and the scrutiny that our hydrogen election policy did when we announced it, and all the same criticism that was coming our way for that went the same way to the former government for the big battery proposition. Yet it occurred and was proven to be a massive success.

Mr Crafter, within government, played a very substantial leading role, if not the leading role, in the procurement of that. It was that exercise that probably informed the judgement that he is best placed to be able to deliver this project. It is not just that, though; Mr Crafter has done a few other things that stood out to me. He had a very senior role at Santos, a company that every South Australian knows. He has significant private sector experience. He went on to work for the former Marshall government as well, working under the leadership of then Deputy Premier Van Holst Pellekaan.

He then went on to subsequently establish his own consultancy in the engineering space, including doing a lot of work around renewables and the electricity market and providing high-level strategic advice, and also policy advice and delivery advice, to the private sector. He did very well to the extent that it was difficult to persuade him to take on this task. He had to leave a successful business, which I do not imagine was easy for him to do. Nonetheless, he took this challenge up, and I am grateful for it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did Mr Crafter make any contribution to Labor's hydrogen election commitment?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In terms of the policy development, he provided advice to us in opposition in terms of the crafting of the policy, but so did a lot of other people.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on to another topic, what is the total remuneration package for the Chair of the South Australian Motorsport Board, Mr Andrew Daniels, whose appointment the Premier announced on 27 March 2022? I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, Premier and Cabinet program summary, income, expenses and FTEs. I understand that the motorsport component, which formerly sat with tourism, is now administered by the Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am very grateful for this. Very quickly, after the election I was in contact with Andrew Daniels to ask him whether or not he would be willing to take up this responsibility, and he obliged. He is currently doing so without being remunerated, which is incredibly generous of him. The size of that generosity is best understood if people were conscious of just how many hours he has put into the task thus far.

My advice is that we have not yet determined what the remuneration for that will be. Naturally, it would be presumptuous to do so given the legislation is still going through the parliament. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for indicating support for that legislation. It certainly passed the other house recently. I thank the opposition for their support for that, and hopefully that is maintained through the bill's passage in this house.

So he has been doing that work. Although he is the government's nominee for the position of chair and he has been doing that role in a non-official sense since then, his service to the state has been really quite exceptional because we have a massive task there in terms of time line. We have certainly been very ambitious about trying to have that race on in the first weekend of December. It is a big task, and he has been working huge hours.

That task has become a little bit easier for him since he has officially now resigned as the CEO of the SMA, but even when he was the CEO of the SMA he was doing a lot of work out of hours coordinating things to make sure we are on track to deliver the commitment for the first weekend of December. Naturally, when that remuneration question is resolved, I think all board chairs and positions are publicly known, so that will be publicly known in due course.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, will that be subject to back pay, or is Mr Daniels' generosity going to be—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is a good question. I have not actually discussed that with him, and he has not raised it with me.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the total remuneration package of the Chief Executive Officer of the South Australian Motorsport Board, Mr Mark Warren, whose appointment the Premier announced on 2 May 2022?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This falls in the same category as the other gentleman who you were asking about earlier, in that Mr Warren is not employed as a chief executive per se. Again, his salary is in the category of not being disclosed publicly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As with my previous question, would the Premier disclose or be able to disclose the band or classification of the executive position?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will take that on notice, and I can come back to you regarding the other gentleman earlier. I am saying 'the other gentleman' because I cannot say his last name properly—Mike D.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I just blame my accent when I cannot say something.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That indeed is a SAES2 position. I am now in a position to confirm that. Mark Warren is also a SAES2.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given that Mr Warren occupies what is at least titled a chief executive officer of a discrete business unit, would the Premier consider changing the policy to disclose the remuneration of such roles, given it is quite distinct, in my assessment, from the other gentleman, who is very much embedded within a department?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I would not have thought so, no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: A change of topic again but on the same reference, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, DPC program summary, income, expenses and FTEs, focusing on government advertising and communications. Since its election, has your government made any changes to Premier's Circular 048, which establishes the process for the management of government communications and advertising?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there has not been a change to the circular as things currently stand.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Who are the current members of the Government Communications Advisory Committee, more commonly known internally as GCAC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there is an interim communications advisory committee group that serves that purpose, made up of Mr Jehad Ali, Rachel Walsh—who is Director, Place and Marketing, Lot Fourteen, Renewal SA—as Deputy Chair, Ryan Shepherd and Mr Andrew Ockenden.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There has been in recent weeks an ad campaign outlining the outcomes of the state government's fresh budget.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier advise how much is being spent on this advertising campaign?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I believe we do have those. I am advised in respect of the size of the budget for this campaign that it is actually being funded by the Department of Treasury and Finance. That is a question best addressed to the Treasurer.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: My next question is in relation to government advertising as well. How much is budgeted for all government advertising in 2022-23?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The current financial year, the one that this budget projects, 2022-23.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that ultimately government media advertising is published publicly. The expenditure for the 2021 financial year in terms of government advertising was $39.1 million, excluding GST. That was the number that was published earlier. Just to give that a comparison, in the 2021 financial year it was $39.1 million, in the financial year prior it was $29.3 million and in the financial year prior to that it was $31.1 million. The figure so far this financial year, as at 8 June, is $36.9 million, so it looks as though, all things being equal, this financial year will end up being the same amount as last financial year and both those amounts were in excess of the 2017-18 financial year.

In terms of the budget going forward, again I am advised that that sits within the responsibility of Department of Treasury and Finance, and DPC is responsible for publishing the actuals, so in terms of the budget from here you are best going to the Department of Treasury and Finance.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier. Are you able to outline the process that led to the appointment of Simple winning the tender for the COVID-19 vaccination and state budget marketing campaigns?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am afraid I am going to have to take that on notice. I do not know because I do not know, but I assume that all appropriate government procurement processes were undertaken. That would be my expectation.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier. Given that Labor engaged Simple in the lead-up to the election, can the Premier advise who made the decision to appoint Simple to run government campaigns?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice that I have received is that the government advertising campaigns that are run are done so by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, having gone through an appropriate process. The advice that I have received is that there is a panel that the government will use from time to time. I do not understand there has been any departure from that process.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You may have to take this one on notice, Premier, but are you able to advise when Simple was placed on that panel?

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

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. Premier, are you concerned about any potential or perceived conflicts of interest between those responsible for appointing Simple to run these campaigns and those who appointed them to run government campaigns?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What was your question again? Am I concerned about a—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you concerned about any potential or perceived conflict of interest between those responsible for appointing Simple?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I would simply say that my expectations are that any person or agency or body or company providing a service to govern should do so through appropriate processes. I have not received any information or am not aware of any suggestion that that has not been the case.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier. Are you able to advise how much Simple has been paid in state government advertising work since your party has come to government?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I do not have the answer to that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you happy to take that on notice?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to go and have a look at that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. Same budget line again but changing topic—so Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18—how many country cabinet meetings will be held in 2022-23 and in which locations will they be held?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We had our first country cabinet the week before last down in Mount Gambier. Given its success, I would certainly hope to be able to continue with the program. It is our intention to do them approximately once a quarter. I know it was a program that was cancelled under the former government. Obviously, we have reinstated it. It does have an expense associated with it because they are a significant undertaking, clearly, but one that does procure, I think, a lot of value for South Australians generally, particularly people in our regions, who do not get to see ministers in cabinet in a forum like that as frequently as people in metropolitan Adelaide.

As it currently stands—in fact, we were only discussing this in a staff meeting this morning—I think the next one is due to be in the Upper Spencer Gulf. I am not sure if we have established the exact dates of that, but I would not expect it to be too far away if we want to maintain a commitment to try to do them quarterly. But in terms of a long-running program into the years and with specific dates and locations, that has not yet been established. Not surprisingly, I think it would be obvious to do so, the next one is in the Upper Spencer Gulf, given that is where our second-biggest cities are after Mount Gambier.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you able to advise—and again, you may have to take this on notice—the budgeted cost of the Mount Gambier country cabinet meeting held on 8 and 9 June?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to go away and do more work, but Mr Woolhouse has been able to provide an indicative cost of what we have thus far. We are still waiting for bills to come through and accounts to come through, so this is not a fully reconciled number, but at the moment ex-GST it looks as though it is about 21½ thousand dollars. In fact, the number here on this piece of paper is $21,541.42. I suspect that number may yet go up as more bills come in. But just to give a sense, this includes flights; car hire and fuel; we put on a community barbecue; there are catering expenses; audio, light and vision expenses; there is a venue hire expense—that was $318.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you for these specifics.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There was a Welcome to Country cost, $90 was spent on tablecloth hire—so it is the usual things.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. I do not want these questions to be seen as criticism of the program by any means. I am just trying to understand the extent of it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Of course.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How many public servants travelled from Adelaide down to Mount Gambier to attend that meeting?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I do not have that number off the top of my head, but what I would say is my expectation is that the chief executive officers are all in attendance.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: And beyond that?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That would be up to individual chief executives, clearly. I would have thought that, on occasions, chief executive officers might take other people down with them, depending on the nature of the location. For instance, I know PIRSA had people down there, particularly from their forestry section, as you would expect—we were there in the South-East.

I would expect a similar undertaking if we were going to the Upper Spencer Gulf: there might be other industries that have specific executive directors from departments in attendance. But the firm expectation from me is that all chief executive officers are in attendance and then it will be up to CEs to determine who else comes. I would have thought that departments have their own internal travel budgets and so forth and we would expect them to be deployed accordingly.

I should also mention that, as far as DPC is concerned, there are Cabinet Office staff who were in attendance because it was a cabinet meeting, an actual cabinet meeting, but also Protocol within DPC have been given responsibility to do a lot of this work and so a lot of those Protocol staff were in attendance as well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. I have a related question: how many ministerial staff travelled from Adelaide to attend the meeting?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, that is up to individual ministers to account for. I do not know, but it would be my expectation that most ministers were probably taking at least a couple of staff. For something of this nature you would think they would take a senior ministerial adviser, if not their own chief of staff, and potentially a media adviser as well, but I do not have that specific number.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, do you intend to continue the practice that the former government took to invite Aboriginal leaders to address cabinet every six months?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We certainly have a policy of engaging with Aboriginal leaders in a range of different forms. I must confess I was not aware that it was a policy of the former government—that may have been because it was a cabinet process, I am not sure. But certainly, there is a very serious commitment from the government to actively engage with Aboriginal leaders in every form at the highest levels. That is something that I am very comfortable in trusting the Hon. Kyam Maher to provide us guidance on.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Every six months we had the SA Aboriginal Advisory Committee (SAAAC) attend and it was very valuable. That might be something to look into for completely apolitical reasons.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It was just useful, and challenging. Premier, without infringing on what happens behind the doors of cabinet, you said just after your election that you would regularly invite senior business people to talk to state cabinet. How many business people have received this invitation, and do you feel comfortable saying who they are?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, we have had our first presentation and that came from Business SA. I chose Business SA to be first cab off the rank—given they are the peak chamber of commerce for the state—and I want to thank Martin Haese and his team for giving an insightful presentation. In terms of the next one, there is a schedule. I think it is being done on a monthly basis is the plan, or thereabouts. My advice is that the next cab off the rank is the Master Builders Association, who are coming on Monday, and then the one after that is the Australian Hotels Association.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to the same budget item, but changing topic: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 18, talking about Lot Fourteen. Has the government directed any major changes to the following Adelaide City Deal projects currently underway at Lot Fourteen, or planned to be underway Lot Fourteen: the First Nations Entrepreneur Hub, the Adelaide Art and Cultures Centre (Tarrkarri) and the Entrepreneur and Innovation Centre?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are three different components there. The short answer is that there are no established changes that we seek to make as things currently stand. I have enjoyed the opportunity in my role as Premier, who is responsible for Lot Fourteen, to go down and spend some time at Lot Fourteen itself and have a good look around. I met with Di Dixon, who is responsible for the delivering of the program there. She is clearly a very talented public servant doing very good work.

I said before the election that Lot Fourteen was a program that enjoys bipartisan support. That is not to say that there will not be changes in a couple of elements. In terms of the Entrepreneur and Innovation Centre, I had the opportunity to meet with the proponent of that project. There is still work to be done, clearly, to be able to fully realise the ambition of that. That is something that I am keen to pursue, notwithstanding that there are challenges that are there.

In respect of the First Nations Entrepreneur Hub, that is a great program, and I very much enjoyed my time there and to meet South Australians, including young Aboriginal South Australians, who are really doing very good things. I was genuinely impressed by that. The third element was Tarrkarri. Again, early works have already started on the Tarrkarri program. As you would reasonably expect, I am making lots of inquiries about all major investments of that scale.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is Tarrkarri on schedule for completion in 2025?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There were a number of projects that had various schedules associated with them under the former government that are clearly not going to be realised, if they ever were. I would have to go away and take advice about how precisely timed that project is.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If you could take that one on notice, that would be great.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What I can say is that I have been advised that the early works have commenced and that they remain ongoing.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When is construction scheduled to commence on the Entrepreneur and Innovation Centre, and when will the centre be completed?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Just a bit of context for the committee here, which is important given the question: there was an expression of interest in July 2020 by the state government. Following that, the then state government entered into a development agreement with the developer Quintessential Equity to deliver the Entrepreneur and Innovation Centre.

Quintessential Equity (QE) are working with potential tenants for lease space in what is a 40,000 square metre entrepreneur building. Once Quintessential Equity reach the agreed precommitment level then building construction can commence. As I understand it, that has not yet occurred but there is plenty of interest, and that work remains ongoing. Sorry, the specific question that you were looking for was?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When is construction scheduled to commence, but you have answered the process around that.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: And when will the centre will be completed, but I guess that is hard to know—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That depends.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —until it can commence.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is right. I think there was an ambition for it to be completed by the end of 2025, but whether or not that ambition is realised is very much a function of whether or not the tenants will be found. I have met with the developer. I have met with Quintessential Equity. It was a brief meeting, given the nature of timing when I was down there, but it was an important meeting

I certainly see the value in the project and I think we would all like to see it go ahead, but it is naturally a project that is fundamentally privately funded, so as you would appreciate the government does not have all of its hands on the levers to be able to deliver that. To the extent that government can reasonably help that along that is something I am committed to doing, and it is something that—and I know the former Premier of state has an interest in and he has spoken to me about it, and I appreciate his interest in the project—I would like to see it happen.

To the extent that myself or my office can assist in that—when I say my office, the Office of the Premier—we are committed to doing so, but ultimately it will be a decision that will be informed by interest coming from the market.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving topics again—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Just one other thing I want to say is that there may yet be government tenancies in that building, particularly from the commonwealth, and that is something that if that can be realised that is a good thing, and I am certainly open-minded to advocating for that accordingly, but the commonwealth will have its own needs and requirements and interests. I see this as being a potentially good project and if there is any way I can advocate in such a way that will see it go ahead then I am happy to assist where I can when it is appropriate to do so.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I guess would-be tenants would have to meet some sort of suitability matrix to be able to get in there.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct, that is correct. That is what makes it a unique proposition. It is also a building that I understand is on a 99-year lease, from memory—yes, that is right—and looking to attract that sort of high-end technical type of tenant. The building, as I understand, is being built with a number of security requirements to attract particular tenants, which is obviously a good thing, but really the ambition is for the building to house high-level tech and cyber-type functions, so we create an addition to the ecosystem that is already there.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. A slightly different budget reference this time: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 25, program 5, which is the Premier's Delivery Unit. Premier, the description for this unit on page 25 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, states that the unit is an independent office. Are you able to advise what that means and from what it is independent?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Can I just invite the head of the Premier's Delivery Unit to come and maybe sub in with the deputy CE? So just say that again; where are you reading from?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Budget paper 4, Volume 4, page 25 was the program and in the description of the Premier's Delivery Unit it is described as an independent office. My question was: what does that mean and from what is this unit independent?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Premier's Delivery Unit is an attached office of DPC, but the unit has been structured in such a way that it answers directly to me. So although the Premier's Delivery Unit is an attached office within DPC and works closely with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and indeed the CEO of the Premier's Delivery Unit works in close collaboration with the Chief Executive Officer of DPC, it is ultimately independent in regard to the fact that it reports directly to me.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So you class it as independent from the Public Service in terms of its delivery, in terms of its functions? I guess it is the use of the word 'independent' that I was wrestling with.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I would not characterise it in the way you just put it. I would say that the Chief Executive Officer of the Premier's Delivery Unit is independent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: And that is why it has been described as independent in the budget papers?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sure.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The description/objective also states that the unit will 'oversee the delivery of identified Government priorities, including all election commitments'. Will the Premier arrange for the unit's website, if there is a website or a future website, to maintain a public listing of all the priorities that the unit is overseeing?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The government obviously has a lot of election commitments—we are unapologetic about that. In fact, the advice I have received is there are 591 that have been tracked. What I am very conscious of, and I think all politicians who have been elected to this place would be conscious of, is that often there are accusations towards governments of all colours and persuasions that they do not meet election commitments or they break promises. I guess, as a new government, we are very determined to avoid that at all costs.

I personally am of the view that governments of both political persuasions in various jurisdictions across the commonwealth have found themselves in situations where they stand accused of breaking election commitments simply because the function and the day-to-day running of government often, along with events, overtakes proceedings in a way that, when you are in government, appears to be rational but to an outside observer or a constituent is not. That is why there is value in having a discrete effort within government that is solely focused on this and nothing else.

In terms of public accountability of the government, clearly we stand to be held to account on our election commitments. They are well known. I know they are well known to the opposition, as they are to the media and, to a larger extent, a significant number of them are well known to the people of South Australia. That is a good thing. We will be held to account for them and all of that is on the public record.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, we have already covered this to an extent, but noting the organisational structure of DPC and the Premier's Delivery Unit not being responsible to the Chief Executive Officer of DPC, does this mean that the unit in all senses is directly answerable to the Premier and has no accountability to the CEO of DPC, or are there aspects where there would be accountability to the CEO of DPC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there is a service level agreement for the Premier's Delivery Unit with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for a range of corporate functions that are provided. We have looked to interstate and international experience to inform the governance model that sits around the Premier's Delivery Unit. As the Leader of the Opposition probably is well aware, this is not the first time that a subnational or national jurisdiction has established units such as this.

There are both conservative and progressive governments globally that have undertaken similar efforts. I think the first, most identifiable, example of where such an agency was set up was the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair. Since then, there have been other iterations across the world in many democracies. I think the best example on the conservative side of politics in the Australian domestic context would be what Premier Baird established in the State of New South Wales.

All the research that was put into the consideration of establishing such a unit here in South Australia was very much informed by the experience that these programs only work to the extent that there is genuine collaboration between the unit, whether it is a prime minister's unit or a premier's unit, and the key agencies within the public sector.

So although it is true that the Premier's Delivery Unit by design answers to me, it is also true that that is not sought to be characterised strictly as a stick, in general language; it is actually really designed to be answerable to me so that it is clear to everyone in every agency that this is something that I am personally paying attention to. However, in practice it only works to the extent that there is genuine collaboration between the unit and other agencies, and that is particularly true with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Referring to the service agreement between DPC and the Premier's Delivery Unit that you mentioned a moment ago in response to my previous question, will you make it public?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Let me take that on notice, but the advice that I have received is that it is about corporate services, ICT, HR, finance facilities and so forth. In terms of the agreement, I would have to go back and contemplate whether we can release it publicly, but rest assured that I do not think it is particularly controversial—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or exciting.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —or exciting in nature.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The budget papers show that it is estimated that, in the first 10 weeks of its existence, the unit is spending $750,000, well over one-third of its total annual budget. Why is the unit already spending well above its budget, in terms of the profile of the expenditure?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that the figure you refer to, which presumably is the $750,000 figure, is a number that was put in by Treasury. By all accounts, it is not going to get anywhere close to that level of expenditure.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The budget papers also show that the unit will have its full budgeted complement of 10 full-time equivalent staff by 30 June. How many of these positions have been recruited through normal public sector recruitment procedures in the eight weeks since the unit's creation was announced?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that five FTEs have been appointed thus far.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did they follow normal merit-selection processes?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that a couple were secondments from DPC and the other two are open calls through the normal application process.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are all staff in the unit public sector employees?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the ratio of executive to non-executive officers in the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Seven non-executives and three executives are what is currently planned.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, when it is at its 10 FTE complement. What are each of the position titles and what is the total remuneration package in each case? Obviously, I expect those to be presented as classifications rather than sums. You could take that on notice, but if you can provide it now, even better.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I had probably best take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Obviously, the unit leader is Mr Rik Morris, who is with you today, Premier. He was your director of strategy during your four years as opposition leader and, before that, an ALP candidate at the 2018 election and ministerial staffer to former Labor premiers and ministers over more than a decade while a member of the Premier's right faction. His whole biography is here. One senior Labor MP has called him a 'ruthless bastard with a velvet touch'.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Who said that? I want to know!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am not sure if that was on Wikipedia or not. Why was normal public sector recruitment process not followed for the appointment of this position?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not too sure it was not. Again, it was a chief executive officer position. As the leader well understands, those judgements sit strictly with me. As was the case under the former government, chief executive officer positions are often appointed by the judgement of the premier of the day. That is a process that is maintained under my government.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the Premier personally give a direction that Mr Morris be appointed to this position without going through normal public sector recruitment processes?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not sure it could be characterised that way.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was it a personal pick by you in terms of identifying Mr Morris for the role?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Every chief executive is picked by me.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, in an administrative sense, but did you personally identify Mr Morris as being the appropriate and best person for this role?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I personally appointed Mr Morris, yes. That is the case for every chief executive.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: But did you identify him as the person you wanted for this role? Did you encourage him to apply for the role?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I wanted him to do the job, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the Premier provide the estimates committee with any written direction that you gave in relation to the creation of this position and the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It was done through a cabinet process. As the leader would well understand, cabinet documents are subject to cabinet in confidence.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the Premier consult with the chief executive officer of his department before deciding to set up the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The short answer is absolutely. Maybe if I just provide a bit of colour around that, the reason for that is that I do not see this office fulfilling its function or realising its intention unless there is that collaboration between the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, its CE in particular, and the Premier's Delivery Unit. I cannot stress that enough, and I am pretty sure the leader would appreciate this.

You can put all the structures in the world in place, you can put all the org charts with various reporting lines in place, but ultimately in leadership people need to be able to work together in order to be able to deliver outcomes. I think that is probably just as true in the public sector, if not more true in the public sector, as in other cases. That was something that was actively discussed between the Chief Executive of the DPC and myself as well as the CE of the Premier's Delivery Unit and remains my expectation.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the Premier established a set of key performance indicators to understand whether Mr Morris is being effective in his role?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, delivering election commitments.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I was going to ask if the Premier would provide those to the committee, but I guess if they are the election commitments they are public already.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct. I think you have arranged a website.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is quite good.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is, actually.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You are surprised that the Liberal Party would be so active so quickly. Different, new leadership now, Premier. We are not falling in a hole for 10 years like we would traditionally do.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is good, and I have found on a couple of occasions more than one government ministerial adviser using it as a source of important information.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We are here to help. It is the Westminster system in action.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, I understand Mr Peter Hanlon is strategic adviser to the unit. What is Mr Hanlon's total remuneration package and what KPIs does he have?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised there is a contract in place for Mr Hanlon's services. That contract has a cost associated with it. I just have to take advice as to whether or not we can publicly disclose that. What I could say with a high degree of confidence is that the volume of money that we are talking about is not particularly huge. I will just take advice as to whether or not we can publicly disclose that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The second part of that question was what key performance indicators does Mr Hanlon have? Are those also the election commitments?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will give some context there. I do not know how familiar the leader is with Peter Hanlon, but Peter Hanlon is an extraordinary South Australian who has worked in the highest levels of the corporate sector in Australia. He is a South Australian who has spent most of his working life in Sydney, working within Westpac, in the highest possible levels of Westpac, and doing work around corporate governance and the like. Mr Hanlon's expertise is around strategic delivery and corporate governance and he provides advice to the Premier's Delivery Unit in that context.

He is one of those people who strikes me as a person with extraordinary experience it would be crazy not to use. I understand that he was on the board of the South Australian Film Corporation, including under the former government. He has a pretty up and down, impressive track record. He is just one of those people we are crazy not to use if we can get access to them. I am grateful that he agreed to help out the Premier's Delivery Unit.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How does the Premier's Delivery Unit interface with the Cabinet Office? Is it able to give direction to the Cabinet Office? Does it interface with the Cabinet Office at all?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, there are regular meetings, I understand.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier was quoted in The Advertiser on 14 April as saying the unit 'would have the capacity to intervene and make recommendations to me directly if projects are lagging or if results are not forthcoming'. Will the unit have the Premier's authority to direct agency chief executives and to require agencies to furnish information to the unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The only people who have the capacity to strictly direct chief executives are the Premier or, indeed, in some instances, ministers, I would have thought, but there is no strict power that has been invested in the Premier's Delivery Unit to be able to instruct a chief executive. Only I can do that, or a minister under certain circumstances.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier told parliament last week that the Treasurer, along with the Premier's Delivery Unit, has been working diligently to make sure that each and every one of those commitments that have been made is being delivered upon. That quote or statement was made in relation to the local sports grants. When did the delivery unit become involved in the process of administering the local sports grants?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are a couple of things. When you say sports grants, they are election commitments. When did the Premier's Delivery Unit start being engaged in the delivery of election commitments? The day it was established.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Did the delivery unit prepare the cabinet submission recommending approval of these grants?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which grants?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The local sports grants.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is not a grant program, there are just election commitments being delivered.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What ongoing role does the delivery unit have in the administration of these grants?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which grants?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The sports grants.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: These are not sports grants, just election commitments being delivered.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In relation to the sporting election commitments—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —or the grants as I will refer to them, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport told his estimates committee last Friday that all requirements for the Ministerial Code of Conduct or requirements on the basis of probity had been met and that the cabinet process had been completed. Will the Premier advise whether any minister declared a conflict of interest in relation to these grants as election commitments—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I have been asked this question—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —and, if so, which minister or ministers?

The CHAIR: Is that actually going to a budget line?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It does, it is through the—

The CHAIR: It cascaded down.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Notwithstanding the fact, I am more than happy to answer the question. As I stated last week and as you would reasonably expect, I have very firm expectations of each of my cabinet ministers to be declaring any relevant conflicts where they are required to do so, and I have no reason to believe that they have not been, or anyone has not been. I have no reason to believe that appropriate processes are not being followed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will ask specifically again in relation to the sports funding: did any of your ministers declare a conflict of interest?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: And I am more than happy to repeat my answer. My expectation is that ministers adhere to all elements of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, including making appropriate declarations where it is appropriate to do so. There has been no suggestion to the contrary, and I have received no advice that anyone has not.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The opposition's first question on this matter in the house last week was to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, asking what role her office had taken in the administration of the sports commitments. The Premier took the question instead and referred to the involvement of Treasury and the Premier's Delivery Unit but not to the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing.

The Treasurer, in answer to another question in the house last Tuesday, also referred to the role of the Premier's Delivery Unit but said nothing about the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. ABC News last Wednesday reported on the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, stating it had no involvement with these grants; however, the story changed in the Treasurer's estimates committee on Friday. He said the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing was contacting the recipients of the grants to get grant agreements in place.

In light of this confusion, can the Premier now explain the process that has been followed within government to establish these grants and pay them to the approved recipients?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes. We made election commitments. The government is delivering the election commitments and the budget process, as approved by the cabinet, is ensuring that those election commitments are being delivered. It is utterly appropriate and reasonable that there be scrutiny over that, and I welcome it.

The reason I welcome it is because it is an opportunity for us to remind each of the recipients of our election commitments, community organisations and otherwise, that we are indeed honouring our election commitments. I appreciate the interest in this because a cynic might argue that it is unusual for a government to be so quickly delivering on its election commitments, but we are determined to do that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Which agency is ensuring compliance with Treasurer's Instruction 15 relating to grant funding and in particular ensuring fulfilment of the condition that each grant is justified by the particular circumstances and is in the public interest?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, now I am struggling to follow which budget line you are referring to.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 25, program 5, which details the Premier's Delivery Unit.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Premier's Delivery Unit, right.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is DPC or the Premier's Delivery Unit ensuring compliance with Treasurer's Instruction 15 relating to grant funding?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Premier's Delivery Unit is doing what it is designed to do, and that is ensuring that we are meeting our election commitments. I am very glad that we are.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How many local sporting grants have been approved to date?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Only election commitments. How many election commitments have been approved? Well, in terms of delivering of the election commitments, all of them are required to go through the budgetary process and I expect are approved.

Mr TARZIA: Premier, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 141 talks about local sporting club facility grants being $97.7 million. They are clearly referred to as grants.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am just trying to get the page number.

Mr TARZIA: Page 141. Agency Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 141. The grants we are talking about are clearly referred to as grants. You can call them election commitments as you like, but they are clearly referred to in your own budget paper as local sporting facility grants. Why do you keep calling them election commitments instead of grants?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry, we intend to honour the election commitments that we have made. Which agency are you referring to here?

The CHAIR: I think you may have moved to a totally different agency. I think you are drawing an incredibly long bow here. If you want to ask these questions, there is another minister that you can ask the questions of.

Mr TARZIA: We will, sir. Tomorrow, as well, we will. I think it is a reasonable question.

The CHAIR: Yes, and it is a reasonable question to the relevant minister. If the Premier is comfortable answering it that is fine, but it does come under another agency and it is not the agency that is being scrutinised here.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: One final question on this matter, and I will refer to them as grants, as the budget paper that the shadow minister referred to did. When did the government—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which budget paper and which line number?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier's Delivery Unit again, given the involvement: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 25, program 5. When did the government begin paying the grants and how many have been approved?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Premier's Delivery Unit is responsible for making sure that our election commitments are adhered to and we are adhering to those election commitments in the appropriate time lines. If there were specific time lines that were committed to it is my expectation that those election commitments are being honoured.

As I said earlier, I certainly do welcome questions whenever we see the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. It is important that the appropriate level of scrutiny is provided for. Naturally, I am conscious of the media attention that these election commitments are receiving. I simply make this point: we are all, ultimately, democrats; we place a value on the democratic process, the election process. I do not think there is anything more transparent than an opposition formulating policy, committing to that policy, costing the policy and delivering that policy consistent with costing of the policy while in government in a first budget. It is utterly appropriate.

As I think I alluded to in question time last week both to the member for Hartley and the member for Black, there are election commitments that we made in your electorates. Your constituents in both your instances obviously elected you to your respective positions, and I congratulate you both on the attainment of those important offices. You represent fine people. But notwithstanding the fact that your constituents ultimately elected a non-government member still does not mean that we are not delivering on those commitments. We are delivering on them everywhere—everywhere.

We are very excited about that. I know that your relative constituents are very excited about that. The Hounds are excited. The Cove club is very excited. It might be that even you are excited. The only thing that might be unorthodox about this is the fact that we are actually doing it. We are doing exactly what we said we were going to do in opposition, and I think a lot of South Australians might find that refreshing.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Think you, Premier. I will move on now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, Program 1: Premier and Cabinet Policy and Support. That does bring to an end my questions on the Premier's Delivery Unit, so you may wish to change officers. The next couple of questions are about the population growth strategy.

Funding of $12.3 million was allocated in the Mid-Year Budget Review for a population growth strategy to be led by DPC. This included implementation of a Magnet State program to increase awareness of South Australia in the Eastern States through marketing in key demographics. What progress is being made in the implementation of the Magnet State program?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is as follows: there is a population strategy that remains ongoing within DPC. It is important. It is focused on increasing the proportion of young people in South Australia and ensuring that we are retaining and attracting young talent from interstate and overseas to provide the skilled workforce our industries need to grow and expand.

A number of programs aim to achieve this, including increasing the understanding and appeal of South Australia's careers and lifestyle opportunities through a campaign; targeting interstate talent in our key growing sectors through industry events and conferences; connecting South Australian graduates with our small and medium enterprises; and also ensuring that, when people arrive in South Australia, they make the right connections to find work and enjoy everything that we have to offer here in South Australia by providing direct information in language, in particular to overseas migrants.

There is a focus on attracting and retaining young people to grow our population in a sustainable and strategic way. We are addressing immediate skills shortages in fast-growing emerging industries. Supporting economic growth by increasing the size of the economy obviously is fundamental to this. Naturally, there are budget lines associated with these endeavours.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The population growth strategy also involves development of a business case to address key supply and demand constraints on regional workforce availability. Are you aware of whether or not this business case has been completed and, if so, what further action will now flow from it?

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

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to a different topic but the same budget reference: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 17, program 1. Has the Premier retained the Economic Advisory Council established by his predecessor, given that the Premier once said he acknowledged the work done by the council on unremunerated business was worthy, and that there are some good people on the council?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think any South Australian who assists their government in an unremunerated fashion—sorry, the specific question you asked was?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Whether you are retaining the Economic Advisory Council in some form.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This is something that is under active review. To put that into a bit of context, we want to make sure that any advisory body to government, remunerated or unremunerated, is structured in such a way to make sure we are delivering strategic outcomes in the state's interest, so this is something that is under active review.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to the same budget reference but a different topic again: the Emergency Management Act. A target for this program in 2022-23 is to implement a review of the Emergency Management Act. Who will undertake this review, what will the terms of reference be and when does the Premier hope it will be completed by?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I have actually sought advice on this question, and I understand that the department is preparing a piece of advice for me that I expect to receive shortly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What would your ambition for a completion date be, for this piece of work?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think that will be informed by the advice I receive from the department about how long it will take. As you would appreciate, reviews vary in nature in terms of their depth, and their breadth. Obviously, we have gone through some significant events, and the act has been tested quite substantially in recent years, but in terms of the length of that review, I think that will be informed by the advice, and the time lines that we establish as a government will be informed by the advice we receive from the department.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier. Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 19, program 2, which is information, data analytics and communication technology services. Since the change of government, have there been any ransomware cyber attacks affecting data held by the South Australian government?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice on this—because it will not surprise you that I have asked this question. In fact I received as much information I could about this pretty soon after coming to government. The policy of government, again across government, has been you do not publicly disclose cyber attacks, for reasons that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will understand, so I am not in a position to answer that question today.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the Mid-Year Budget Review the Marshall Liberal government provided $53.2 million over four years to accelerate government investment in digitising and streamlining public sector activities. Is the current government maintaining this funding?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That will be subject to the work that has been undertaken by the CEO of DPC in examining options for savings to be realised following the budget.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is that $53.2 million subject to potential savings or potential reductions?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: All work within DPC is being scrutinised to find opportunities for savings, and that is not exempt from that process.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 22, program 3, the South Australian Productivity Commission. Since becoming Premier, have you met with the Chair of the Productivity Commission, Adrian Tembel?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the first dot point at page 15 of Budget Paper 4, a key agency output of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is described as follows:

through the South Australian Productivity Commission, provide independent recommendations to improve the rate of economic growth and productivity of the South Australian economy through extensive inquiry processes.

In view of this statement, why is the government making such significant cuts to the commission in this budget by halving its staff, and cutting its spending by almost 25 per cent at a time when it is vital that we lift productivity in South Australia?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Given that we are jumping to the Productivity Commission questions, I will just introduce Mr Steve Whetton, who is the Chief Executive of the Productivity Commission. I do not know if you have met Steve before?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: You may not have. Yes, there are savings to the Productivity Commission as there is across the government. The budget for the Productivity Commission is outlined in the budget papers, as the leader is well aware. In respect of the FTEs, the advice that I have received is that we do not necessarily anticipate that those reductions in the FTEs were necessarily realised. The figure that you see here is one that Treasury put in the budget.

I am advised that there are other savings opportunities that exist within the functions of the Productivity Commission that can be realised that are non-staff costs, so that may mean that that FTE reduction is not nearly as substantial as represented within the Budget Papers, which of course is a matter that I am happy to sit with the Productivity Commission itself. Was there another part of your question?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, that was the main thrust of the question I suppose, but I have some others. Since your election, Premier, has the government referred any matters to the Productivity Commission for a review or an inquiry?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not yet, but that is under active consideration by me.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, states on page 22 that one target for the commission in the 2022-23 financial year is to commence new inquiries. Can the Premier give an indication of any of the areas being considered for these inquiries?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, because it has not been finalised, but naturally the inquiries align themselves to economic opportunity, particularly through productivity growth. The Productivity Commission was something that was established by the former government. It enjoyed bipartisan support and that is why it has been retained by our government.

Naturally there is a savings task being imposed upon the Productivity Commission. Savings tasks are difficult, as the former minister, the leader, well understands. One of the things that informs an ambition for savings is about reallocating resources towards our government's priorities and our election commitments of which, as I outlined earlier, there are a very large number. So we are looking to other functions within government to increase productivity and active consideration was given to whether we would impose those savings tasks on the Productivity Commission.

Is there additional productivity to be found in the Productivity Commission? I figured that if we cannot find productivity in the Productivity Commission then probably nowhere. They are getting on with the job of realising those savings, but that is in no way to understate the value that we think the Productivity Commission can provide. Obviously, Mr Whetton's and Mr Tembel's appointments were made by the former government, but I am satisfied that both gentlemen are good South Australians who bring with them a lot of capacity.

I think the Productivity Commission can serve the state well, but I guess I am really keen to make sure that any work we get the Productivity Commission to undertake might actually help inform a decision on government policy. There are risks with such agencies that reports are developed, and they sit there and then nothing happens. That is not a criticism of the former government; that is just the nature of government.

I would rather spend a bit of time getting clear in my head the questions we are going to ask the Productivity Commission to look at so that those questions help a piece of work be undertaken that actually informs a judgement to be made or not to be made. I guess that is what is under active consideration from my perspective in how to best deploy the resource.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier. You have previously debated in estimates committees the desirability of having the Productivity Commission examine the outsourcing of train and tram services. Accordingly, are you planning to ask the commission to inquire into this matter before you seek to reverse the current arrangements for the provision of these services?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No. Just to explain why not, we went to the election with a commitment to establish a commission of inquiry in regard to undoing the privatisation that was a broken election commitment from the former government. We are delivering on our commitment to bring back the trains and trams into the operation of state government, so undoing that privatisation. Obviously, that is a significant undertaking. Undoing a privatisation is rare. It does not happen very often generally. There are examples of it happening in Australia but not lots of them.

So we went to the election committing to a commission of inquiry to do that undertaking. There are meetings with the private operator, Keolis Downer, that have already happened and more that are scheduled in the not-too-distant future. I am very happy to put on the record my thanks to Keolis Downer in terms of the engagement we have had with them thus far. They acknowledge the election commitment, and they have made it clear to me and the government that they are very keen to work with us in delivering that election commitment. So we see a willing partner in Keolis Downer to transfer those services back to the government.

Naturally, they would prefer that we did not go ahead with the election commitment, and that is reasonable, but thus far they have been very professional in engaging with the government, and I thank them for that. Those efforts will remain ongoing and will inform the timing of a commission of inquiry accordingly. Given the status of that effort and the commitment to a commission of inquiry, we would not see the deployment of the Productivity Commission being a good use of their time.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Premier, that brings my questions about the Productivity Commission to an end. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 23, Program 4: Infrastructure SA.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I thank Steve Whetton and introduce Catherine Jamieson, who is the Principal Policy Officer for Infrastructure South Australia. Unfortunately, Jeremy Conway has COVID, so he is unable to join us today and Catherine is stepping up to the plate.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thanks for joining us. In the 2021-22 budget, the previous government established the Business Case Fund, providing almost $27 million of funding over four years to support the preparation of business cases on potential key infrastructure projects. Projects funded for the preparation of business cases included a new Northern Water Supply, future requirements of the Police Communications Centre, the Augusta Highway duplication between Port Pirie and Crystal Brook and the Eyre Highway widening and upgrade, to name a handful. Some of these business cases were also being supported by federal funding. Can the Premier advise if his government has so far initiated any further business cases for major projects?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not that I am aware of at this stage. I have certainly had plenty of discussions with Infrastructure South Australia about the business cases that are currently underway. I am taking an interest in a number of them, particularly those ones that I think, in a big picture sense, can be strategically very significant for the state. Naturally, Northern Water is one that is at the top of my mind. I think it is a project that could potentially have a lot of economic uplift for our state more broadly. But the short answer to your question is no, not at this stage.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is a project likely to receive bipartisan support.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Hear, hear!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the Premier identify the proposed initiatives currently being supported by the Business Case Fund?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Northern Water would be the best example of that, I assume. I am advised that Treasury and Finance advised the Business Case Fund.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When is Infrastructure SA's 2022 Capital Intentions Statement due for release?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My understanding is that it is sometime around September.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the government intend to retain Infrastructure SA as part of government administration for the longer term?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The last dot point on page 23 advises that a target for Infrastructure SA in 2022-23 is to maintain oversight of planning, delivery and performance of state government funded major infrastructure projects. Is this work being second-guessed, for want of a better term, by the Premier's Delivery Unit? Is there duplication here?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I do not believe so. I do not believe there is duplication there.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Since becoming Premier, has the Premier had a meeting with the Chair of Infrastructure SA, Mr Tony Shepherd?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. That brings my questions for Infrastructure SA to a conclusion. I move on to the Auditor-General now; the reference is Budget Paper 3, page 154, Appendix C, table C.2, line 3.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Can I introduce Mr Andrew Richardson, who is the Auditor-General, and Mr Ian McGlen on my left, who is the Deputy Auditor-General.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I believe normal practice is that, because the Auditor-General reports to parliament, questions can be directed directly to the Auditor-General in estimates committees.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Okay. That was the advice that I received, but I am not worried either way. Premier, since your election, has your government had any engagement with the office of the Auditor-General or the Auditor-General himself regarding access to cabinet submissions?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not to me or my office, no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or to Cabinet Office or any unit within DPC?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that, a couple of weeks ago, the Auditor-General wrote to the CE of DPC to discuss this thing. I understand that a meeting intends to be arranged to discuss this subject.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is it possible to make that subject of the inquiry public here today or highlight what the—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is that the Auditor-General has sought a meeting or a discussion with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to discuss what the arrangements will be about access to various documents.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In terms of administrative arrangements, not the topic?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Sorry, Premier, I misunderstood.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I probably did not explain it very clearly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Auditor-General reported to parliament last year on the processes for the heavy rail service contract. Despite allegations to the contrary by the then opposition, the Auditor-General concluded that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport had designed and applied processes throughout the procurement that were consistent with sound probity principles for a transaction of this size and nature.

The Auditor-General also advised that he would not identify evidence of any specific probity matters that would suggest the procurement was compromised. Since your election, has the government sought any discussions with the Auditor-General's office about your intention to reverse current arrangements for the operation of train and tram services?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do you plan to?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Unless there was a particular need to, I would not have thought so. I do not want to misinterpret the nature of your question, but we have an election commitment and we are going to deliver upon it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I guess my question is framed or motivated by the idea that the reversal of this policy, regardless of ideological feelings towards it, has a high level of complexity around it. Would you be intending to seek the Auditor-General's advice and insight as to how that could be administered effectively?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If we thought there was a need to do so, then we would not have any hesitation in doing that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do you think there will be a need?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is hard to say at this stage.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Your government has also committed to examining the feasibility of returning metropolitan bus services to government control.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the government sought any advice from the Auditor-General's office about this proposal, and would you foresee doing so?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We have not up to this point. In terms of what happens from here on in, that would be governed by various deliberations that have to be made or the advice that we receive. The policy is that the commission of inquiry examines that question about whether or not that would actually be in the state's interest.

If in the event the commission of inquiry goes ahead and advises us that it would be in the state's interest and that in turn necessitated questions that might be best suited to be answered by the Auditor-General, then there would be no reason why we would not actively explore that, I would have thought, but that is a long way down the track so it is not something that has been considered up until you asking it, really.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is the Auditor-General currently conducting any audits, reviews or examinations pursuant to section 32(1b) of the Public Finance and Audit Act?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice to that question is no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given the discretionary mandate that the Auditor-General has to be involved in local government, is the Auditor-General currently undertaking any specific examinations in this area?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there is one investigation currently being undertaken into local government.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you able to provide any more detail on that or is that inappropriate to do so?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The advice is that there is an investigation underway within the context of local government but at this stage of the investigation it is best not to go into a description of it.

The CHAIR: There is a little bit of drift from specific budget lines. I think I have been very flexible, but at least loosely take it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I do not remember your predecessor, when it was the other way around, being nearly as flexible as you, Mr Chair.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I appreciate the flexibility. I think that was fair, the local government one, really. That is a key function, is it not? How will the work of the Auditor-General's office be affected by the imposition of the government's 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend, if in fact it is impacted by that dividend?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Auditor-General is impacted by the efficiency dividend. It has not been exempted, so like all other government agencies it is subject to an efficiency dividend or to a savings task. The Auditor-General has advised me that they are currently undertaking a piece of work to establish how that will be undertaken. In terms of the size of the savings task, I presume that is already in the budget papers. I was talking to the Auditor-General about this in advance of today, obviously. The savings task in this upcoming financial year is $300,000 out of a budget of $18.6 million.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will this affect the Auditor-General's ability to undertake its roles and responsibilities effectively?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Auditor-General has an incredibly important function within the state, as does every element of the Public Service. There is no element of the Public Service that is not important, but that does not mean that de facto every element of the Public Service is immune from savings tasks, although some have been exempted, as the leader would be well aware. It is my hope that agencies, including the Auditor-General, will go about realising those savings ambitions as effectively as they possibly can so as to mitigate any impact on service delivery.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That brings to a conclusion my questions for the Auditor-General and I am happy to move on now to the payments for the House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services, Budget Paper 3, page 154, Appendix C, table C.2 at lines 31 to 33.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Rick Crump is back.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: He needs no introduction, but feel free to introduce him.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In your hands.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is in relation to Parliament House staff.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Just so I know, which budget paper?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Parliament House payments are on page 154, Appendix C, table C2, lines 31 to 33.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, got it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: On a full-time equivalent basis, how many staff in total were employed by the parliament in 2021-22 and how many are budgeted for in 2022-23?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is no change in the established fully funded FTE numbers on the 2021-22 year. The advice I have for the average number of FTEs across the various functions of the parliament for the 2021-22 financial year is 100.1. In terms of how that is broken down, I am advised that the average for catering was 14, reporting averages 22½, joint services is 12.1, library is 11.7, House of Assembly is 23, and the Legislative Council is 16.8.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Was that for the 2021-22 year?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is right, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you able to give that figure for 2022-23?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that it will be the same; there is no change.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What was the total expenditure on wages for staff employed by the parliament in 2021-22, and what is the budgeted expenditure for the forthcoming financial year 2022-23?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We can take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How will the operations of Parliament House be affected by the imposition of the government's 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend, and has Parliament House anticipated areas that might be cut due to this dividend?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that parliament is not subject to an efficiency dividend.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is good news for everyone.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that, in actual fact, there might be growth by two staff because of the People and Culture unit that is set to be established.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Okay, thank you. I am going to ask Mr Tarzia to read in the omnibus questions now and see how we are going for time after that. We might slot another couple of questions in.

Mr TARZIA: Thank you. The omnibus questions for this committee, Premier:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes incurred between 22 March 2022 and 30 June 2022?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, which administrative units were created, abolished or transferred to another department or agency between 22 March 2022 and 30 June 2022 and what was the cost or saving in each case?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 22 March 2022 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 22 March 2022 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 22 March 2022?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged between 22 March 2022 and 30 June 2022, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2022-23 for consultants and contractors, and for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise whether it will be subject to the 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend for 2022-23 to which the government has committed and, if so, the budgeted dollar amount to be contributed in each case and how the saving will be achieved?

9. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees were there at 30 June 2022, and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the number of executive staff to be cut to meet the government's commitment to reduce spending on the employment of executive staff by $41.5 million over four years and, for each position to be cut, its classification, total remuneration cost and the date by which the position will be cut?

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

What savings targets have been set for 2022-23 and each year of the forward estimates;

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise what share it will receive of the $1.5 billion the government proposes to use over four years of uncommitted capital reserves held in the budget at the time it took office and the purpose for which this funding will be used in each case?

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

What was the actual FTE count at 30 June 2022 and what is the projected actual FTE account for the end of each year of the forward estimates;

What is the budgeted total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates; and

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

14. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2022-23 and for each year of the forward estimates?

15. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2022-23 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

16. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2022-23?

17. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide for each individual investing expenditure project administered, the name, total estimated expenditure, actual expenditure incurred to 30 June 2022 and budgeted expenditure for 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26.

18. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

Budgeted expenditure from the program or fund; and

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

The CHAIR: Excellent questions.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We have a few minutes left. My next set of questions, Premier, are in relation to the Major Events Fund. I am not sure if you want to change officers. The budget reference is Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 98, with the heading Major Events Fund, as I mentioned. My first question is: can the Premier explain why the new Major Events Fund is administered under him and is not under the tourism portfolio?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We place a high value on what major events can contribute to the state's economy. That is something that I take an interest in, as you would reasonably expect. Obviously, the Adelaide 500 is an important event that, as you identified earlier, sits associated with DPC, so we saw this as a reasonably appropriate place for it to sit accordingly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Why was this additional funding of $10 million each year for the Major Events Fund not simply added to the Leisure Events Bid Fund under the Minister for Tourism?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We are happy for it to be discrete and have a degree of oversight from me.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Who makes the final determination for projects applying for funding under the Major Events Fund?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Ultimately, it would come to cabinet I would have thought.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is there a body or advisory panel that makes recommendations to the final decision-makers, whether that is yourself or Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We have established a major events attraction committee to be able to provide advice to the government in this regard. I have asked Leon Bignell, who is the member for Mawson, to chair that committee. Leon, the member for Mawson, has a bit of experience in this area and a lot of contacts, and I think he is a good appointment to provide a degree of stewardship and to tap into his skills and his knowledge base.

Naturally, Mr Bignell is working closely with the Minister for Tourism. I have written to the chair of the South Australian Tourism Commission to advise that Mr Damien Walker, who is the CEO of DPC, will be an ex officio member of the committee and will work closely with the SATC on this matter. We do not see the major events attraction committee necessarily being the only source of advice but the principal source of advice to the government on what we want to do in terms of achieving with the major events.

It is not just about sporting events; it is also about other events as well. It could be music or art or cultural or even, potentially, if it was a particular major event in the context of conventions, there are things that we would be open-minded to. It is an important undertaking. I understand that work is being actively pursued by DPC to look at who else will sit on that advisory committee. We may have some news about that in due course, once those appointments are made, but as yet we have not made any other appointments.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will Mr Bignell be paid for that role?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or expenses reimbursed or anything like that?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If there were expenses that were worthy of reimbursement those considerations would have to be made at the time, but he is not being paid anything extra for the role. He is doing it as a parliamentarian with an active interest in the area of policy.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Obviously the Premier has taken a component of what was previously the Minister for Tourism's portfolio. Why did the Premier not make himself the Minister for Tourism rather than splitting the portfolio in this way? Was any consideration given to that?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, Minister Bettison is obviously responsible for the tourism portfolio, and I think she is doing an outstanding job. The minister had that portfolio in opposition, has a lot of interest in it, and I know has a lot of support within the tourism sector, including from key stakeholders.

I am very grateful for the fact that key stakeholders have gone out of their way to thank the government for having a minister who is discretely responsible for the portfolio. I understand the judgement that was made by the former government, and by the former Premier, to take those responsibilities on himself. I can see the arguments in favour of the Premier taking on some of those responsibilities, and I can see the arguments against it.

Different premiers have different models but, for mine, I think the industry, particularly given its unique set of circumstances coming on the back of the pandemic, needs a minister that is devoted to it specifically and not caught up with the running of government, which of course brings with it substantial responsibilities and challenges. So it was never in my contemplation to take that portfolio on myself, and I thank the minister for doing her work very diligently.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you.

The CHAIR: The time allotted having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolios of Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services, Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, State Governor's Establishment and the Auditor-General's Department completed. The examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is adjourned until Tuesday 21 June 2022. The examination of the proposed payments for the Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is adjourned until Tuesday 21 June 2022.

I would like to thank everyone for their contribution, especially the public servants who put in such an effort to prepare for estimates. I thank the Premier for his comprehensive answers and the leader, and once again thank the opposition for the measured approach to these proceedings. I also thank the long-suffering backbenchers who have sat there in silence and, of course, the parliamentary staff who provide their support in so many different ways.

At 17:18 the committee adjourned to Tuesday 21 June 2022 at 9:00.