Estimates Vote

Department of Treasury and Finance, $175,788,000

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $3,557,414,000

Minister:

Hon. S.C. Mullighan, Treasurer.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms T. Pribanic, Deputy Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr S. Bayliss, Chief Services Officer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms T. Blight, Executive Director, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms T. Scott, Executive Director, Financial Management, Reporting and Policy, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr B. Gay, Executive Director, Commercial and Economics, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr G. Raymond, Director, Revenue and Intergovernmental Relations, Budget and Performance, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr L. Jones, Financial Services, Department of Treasury and Finance.

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee B. I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of this land upon which the committee meets today and pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to the elders both past and present.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate?

Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 8 September 2023.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they 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 minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister 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, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament website.

I now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio is Department of Treasury and Finance. The minister appearing is the Treasurer. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make an opening statement, if he so wishes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have an opening statement.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, can you confirm the additional state taxation and GST revenue estimated to be delivered in FY 2-22-23 as compared to your previous budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is that as compared to the previous state budget or the previous estimates in the Mid-Year Budget Review that was released?

Mr COWDREY: The previous state budget.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For the 2022-23 financial year, last year's state budget delivered in June an estimated $7,378 million in revenue, and this year's budget estimates $7,702 million.

Mr COWDREY: For state taxation?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, that is for GST.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, I am aware.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For state taxation, in Budget Paper 3, page 34, there is a table, 'General government sector revenue'. Taxation revenue at last year's budget is estimated to be $5,285.8 million; grant revenue, $13,606.7 million; sale of goods and services, $2,923.8 million; interest income, $143.6 million; dividend and income tax equivalent revenue, $242 million; and other revenue $1,585 million.

The estimated result, bearing in mind we do not have final budget outcomes for the current financial year, in this budget: $5,611.7 million for taxation revenue; grant revenue, $13,951.9 million; sale of goods and services, $2,997 million; interest income, $325.7 million; dividend and ITE revenue, $153.2 million; and other revenue, $1,618.9 million.

Mr COWDREY: If I direct you to Budget Paper 3, page 10, there is an easier breakdown for you, perhaps. Can you please, for the purposes of the committee, provide us the delta between the two lines, in particular taxation revenue and GST revenue grants between the 2022-23 budget and the estimated results?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The two lines—I did not bring a calculator in. There is probably one on your iPhone, but the figures there, as I have just gone through, in table 3.2 on Budget Paper 3, page 34—

Mr COWDREY: Are you finding it that difficult, Treasurer, to say $650 million in additional state tax and GST revenue?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have done the calculation, so you do not need it from me?

Mr COWDREY: I would just like to hear it from you, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have already given a figure. You already have the answer you are after.

Mr COWDREY: Can you confirm that the expected total revenue across the forward estimates between your budget last year and the estimated result and projections moving forward confirms that there is an additional $6 billion in total revenue coming into the state over the forward estimates?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which budget paper are you making reference to and which page?

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 3, page 10, as previously referenced.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Budget Paper 3, page 10, provides you, as you describe, those revenue figures across those main sources of revenue and the general government sector for last year's budget in the current financial year and this year's budget in the same financial year. What the table does not refer to is the out years changes, and of course in this budget we also have the difference with an additional financial year of the 2026-27 financial year.

Mr COWDREY: So you are not aware of the projections you made in a previous year's budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, they would be in previous year's budget papers, which would have been the subject of previous year's estimates processes.

Mr COWDREY: So you are not willing to provide any information?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can take it on notice if you like, but if you have not done the research, if you have not looked up the previous budget papers, which were to be references for—

Mr COWDREY: I just gave you the number, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the previous year's estimates. If you have the number, why would you ask me the question, unless you want to run down the clock because you do not have enough questions for today.

Mr COWDREY: I have plenty of questions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is that the strategy?

Mr COWDREY: We can go in this manner, if you wish.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So your purpose today is for me to confirm—

Mr COWDREY: If your purpose today—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —your use of a desktop calculator in comparing last year's budget to this year's budget; is that what we are trying to achieve here?

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, I would be touchy too if I had managed to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not touchy at all. I am relaxed about the budget—

Mr COWDREY: You are not touchy?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —I have presented. I am quite proud of it.

Mr COWDREY: You are proud of $1.3 billion in overspend? With $650 million of additional tax revenue coming into the state, you have managed to turn a deficit, and you are proud of that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am very proud that the strength of the state's economy, the strength of the nation's economy has delivered additional revenues into the state budget, and I am very proud of the decisions that this government has taken to deploy those additional revenues to areas of high need for the South Australian community. If you disagree with putting extra money into health, if you disagree with putting extra money into child protection, if you disagree with providing additional funds not previously budgeted for for flood response and recovery, I think that is a reflection on you and your priorities, not on the priorities of this government.

Mr COWDREY: You do not need to verbal me, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You just verballed me.

Mr COWDREY: As you are well aware—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is a debate.

Mr COWDREY: —there have been overspends—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The rules of debate apply, and we are allowed to put our differing opinions.

Mr COWDREY: —in just about every department, and you have referenced a number of them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have put your opinion to me, and I am putting the counter opinion back. If you do not agree with additional funding for health, if you do not agree with additional funding for child protection, if you do not agree with deploying tens of millions of dollars in this financial year for flood recovery and response—

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —that is not a reflection on me. That is a reflection on you. I am proud of this budget.

Mr COWDREY: —I ask the questions. I ask the questions in estimates—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I am answering them.

Mr COWDREY: —and you provide the answers.

The CHAIR: Excuse me, can we get back to the budget lines before this estimates committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which of the priorities do you not agree with?

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, as you have been made aware, I ask the questions in estimates. You provide the answers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I am answering.

Mr COWDREY: No, that is a question, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So tell us. There is no question mark after that.

Mr COWDREY: As I have already alluded to, there are a number of departments that have overspent. You have referenced two.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Three. Three priority areas.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to operating expenses—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let me go through the detail, if you like. In the previous—

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, I did not ask you that question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would like me to answer in a way that you are solely comfortable with? Is this your expectation of estimates, is it?

Mr COWDREY: No, I would like you to answer questions when I ask them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have just said something, and I am responding to it. If you are uncomfortable with the line of questioning, I invite you to move on, but I am happy to keep talking about it.

Mr COWDREY: You have a rather unique approach to these proceedings each and every year. In regard to Budget Paper 3, page 23, you have already referenced to a great degree here this morning, and in the media, in regard to health, child protection, floods. I will certainly contend that there is a significant amount of the funds attributed to the flood relief that have been contributed to from the commonwealth and will be sought to be recouped from the commonwealth through the disaster assistance fund. In regard to every other headline agency in the budget papers, are you able to explain to the committee today why every headline agency, apart from the Electoral Commissioner and TAFE SA, have overspent this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would also say Industry, Innovation and Science has had a significant reduction in their estimated outcome, and it reflects that across these agencies a couple of different things are happening. As I said, additional revenues that have come into the state budget since last year's budget, and indeed additional revenues that have come into the state budget since the Mid-Year Budget Review update, have provided greater fiscal capacity for the government to respond to pressing issues for the community.

I have just outlined three key areas for that—health, child protection and flood recovery—but that is not an exhaustive list. In health, for example, the projected spend for the health portfolio that was left to this government by the previous Liberal government in the previous Liberal government's last budget update in the Mid-Year Budget Review was just over $7.2 billion.

You will see in this budget, in these budget papers, in that table you have drawn our attention to, the estimated result for Health and Wellbeing is $8.4 billion, so $1.2 billion more that is being deployed to the health portfolio starting in last year's budget, increasing in the Mid-Year Budget Review and then increasing in this year's budget again.

As I have said in my budget speech and as I have said publicly and at industry forums, some of which you have been present at, there has continued to be demands on the health portfolio beyond which were previously anticipated, both by the former government and by this government. We have had more activity coming into our hospitals. We have had a greater persistence of COVID, for example, and that has required us to deploy more financial resources to health.

The same extends to child protection. We have had more kids coming into state care than had previously been anticipated and we have needed to fund that. The government has already started the work of responding to various recommendations of inquiries into child protection requiring a range of other initiatives and we have provided additional resources to support that.

In flood recovery, at the Mid-Year Budget Review, we had to allocate I think it was just over $51 million for flood response and recovery, and we have continued to deploy resources towards that purpose. In a range of other agencies, there have been additional demands which have been raised by cabinet ministers and accepted by cabinet for the deployment of additional resources because while some people might think that every area of government was adequately resourced for all of the demands and pressures that were experienced by different parts of the South Australian community that those portfolios have relevance to, I, quite frankly, would not agree with that.

If we have additional revenues coming into the budget that have given the government additional financial flexibility to respond to those pressures in the community, then the government is entitled to deploy additional financial resources. You can engage in hyperbole and say that this is a blowout, but what this reflects is that the government has, fortunately, had the additional financial capacity to take decisions to deploy additional resources to areas of need in government and I think that is a responsible response from the government. I think that is a good way for a government to respond to areas of community need.

The other area which is reflected in these papers, which is not as dominant in terms of how impactful it has been, is the reallocation of resources from some agencies to other agencies, reflecting shifts in responsibilities between those portfolio areas. While I have highlighted one agency in particular where there has been a significant change in the level of resourcing from the previous year's budget to this year's budget, that is also the case in a number of other areas across agencies.

You can refer to it in the hyperbole that you do, but this government I think quite proudly has taken decisions to make more resources available for areas of government and community need because we have had greater financial capacity to do so.

Mr COWDREY: Where do you draw the line, Treasurer, if every department wants more? It is your job as the Treasurer to show fiscal responsibility. When there are additional pressures, which there are every day in government, which were faced by every Treasurer before you, where do you draw the line? If there is money available we spend it; is that what you are advocating for as the government's default position?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would like some fireside advice from me about how you should contemplate your potential responsibilities, should you ever occupy this chair? Is that what you are after?

Mr COWDREY: You can be facetious if you like.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not being facetious. You are asking me for some advice about how you should go about conducting yourself. I think, in broad terms, if the government is in receipt of additional revenues, then there is a balance to be achieved by making sure that the expectations of the community, so far as is practical and so far as is responsible, can be met.

I do not think anyone reasonably has the position that, while we have a national GP crisis and activity levels are continuing to escalate year on year beyond previous expectations in our hospitals and in our emergency departments, we should maintain the previous position of the previous Liberal government and seek to sack doctors and nurses. Instead, with the additional financial resources that we have had—the additional financial flexibility—we have sought to increase funding to those hospitals.

I do not think it is really anyone's expectation in the community that, if the Department for Child Protection is finding it necessary to remove kids from families and take them into state care, the state budget should not provide the resources to adequately care for those children that have been removed from their families. The alternative proposition—

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not finished my answer. If the alternative proposition from you is that those areas of need are not funded, well, quite frankly I disagree. We were faced with growing warnings and reports from our emergency services and from the environment department that we were going to have a significant flood event. Initially, those warnings—if I remember our Emergency Management Committee meetings accurately—were not fully cognisant of what the extent of the river level rises was going to be, and hence we have continued to step up the amount of support that we have provided for Riverland communities.

While those three are, I guess, the headline recipients and the recipients of the greatest amounts of additional resourcing in the budget, it is true to say that they are not the only areas of government that have received additional resources.

Mr COWDREY: It is every agency.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry?

Mr COWDREY: It is just about every agency that is overspent.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is right. If you have the additional capacity to provide additional supports for those areas, if you have additional capacity to provide funding for areas of need, then I do not think it is unreasonable that the government turns its mind to it. Your question is: where do you draw the line? How do you know that you are responsibly meeting those requests and not just saying yes to everything? I think you are seeing governments around the country take different views about how they try to manage the impacts on their balance sheets, for example.

Again, if we take the last budget position from the previous Liberal government that was reported, the 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Review, again I do not have that in front of me, but my recollection is that non-financial public sector debt at the end of this financial year at 30 June was projected to be just over $27.5 billion. You will see in these budget papers that forecast debt for the same financial year is $26 billion. So we have deployed additional financial resources for these agencies to meet areas of community need. We have also managed to ensure that, overall, the budget's position can be improved and strengthened.

Mr COWDREY: Were all budget contingencies exhausted in FY 2022-23?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which budget paper are you looking at?

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 3, page 23.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Where is the contingency line? Are you referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Department of Treasury and Finance, the consolidated account contingency line?

Mr COWDREY: There are contingency accounts held across multiple agencies.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Would you like me to direct the committee's attention to the correct budget line? Would that help?

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, we can do this whichever way you would like.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure, I am just trying to help the committee. Would you like me to direct the committee's attention to the appropriate budget line in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4? In Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 176 we have the three contingency provision lines which cover employee entitlements, investing contingencies and supplies and services. Obviously the end of the financial year is close but not yet upon us and we do not have a final reconciliation of the expenditure of those contingency provisions, but the advice that the budget has to date is covered in those three lines where you will see the changes between budget and the estimated result.

I suspect in August/September we might have the final budget outcome which will include the final allocations against those three results, but you will see across those three lines there are significant movements between the employee entitlements, which is a change from $41.08 million to $66.6 million; the investing contingency from $542.9 million to $73.2 million; and the supplies and services from $278.6 million to $136.5 million.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to Health and Budget Paper 3, page 23, again in the forward budget in terms of operating expenses, you reference the activity assumptions in Health before. Are you confident that you have the activity assumptions assessed correctly this year and will Health meet their budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have set these budgets based on the best information that we had at the time for putting the budget together, bearing in mind of course that the government usually settles the budget a number of weeks before the actual release of the budget so in many ways the actual final outcomes of these estimated results are not known until several weeks after the end of the financial year, as I am sure you can appreciate.

We have made our best estimate according to the information that we had from SA Health at the time. That is not necessarily just the additional activity growth and the additional expenditure levels leading up to the point in time that the government settled the budget. We also try to make an allowance for the period of time between settling the budget and the end of the financial year, for example, and then of course understanding how that may extrapolate out across the remainder of the forward estimates.

In that respect, we feel that these estimates are based on the best and most current advice that we had at the time, but we are in a similar position in one respect to SA Health and to previous governments for many years—but particularly over the last three or so years as the health system has been dealing with COVID and, more recently, in the last two years as the health system has been battling the further pressure from a lack of access to the primary healthcare networks and the lack of access to GPs. We have been continually having to re-estimate how much activity is coming in through the front doors of our hospitals because of the pressures of both increased activity levels and persistent COVID.

I understand we have had a historical average of activity growth of approximately 2 per cent per annum. There have obviously been much higher levels of demand not just in this current financial year but in previous financial years. We have tried to recalibrate our expectations and how we have budgeted for it in line with those high levels of demand, but I do not think anyone can guarantee exactly what numbers are going to be coming in through the front doors of the hospitals.

The federal budget, for example, has tried to intervene in how it funds and supports primary health care by tripling the bulk billing incentive, trying not only to incentivise GPs to stay in that area of the healthcare system but also to encourage medical graduates to consider being GPs because they know that, if people feel that they need medical attention and they cannot get to their GP, they are going to end up in our hospitals. While one perspective might be, 'Isn't that a good thing for the federal government? They are going from fully funding that healthcare attendance to only partially funding the attendance in a hospital,' I think everybody realises that, when someone turns up to hospital, that is a far more costly medical intervention for that person than if they were in a GP clinic.

I hope that those interventions, amongst others in the federal government, and the strategies we are putting in place in the South Australian health system pay dividends, but time will tell, and I cannot give any sort of guarantee about what activity levels there are going to be in our hospitals because, to a large extent, it is out of the state's control.

The CHAIR: Before you move on to your next question, we did move into questions very quickly and I did not give the Treasurer the opportunity to introduce his advisers. Would you like to do that now?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, that is my fault. To my left are Tricia Blight, the Executive Director of Budget and Performance, and Tammie Pribanic, the Deputy Under Treasurer. On my right is Rick Persse, the Under Treasurer. I can introduce others as they come to the table for subsequent times of questioning, if you like.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the same table, Treasurer, do you believe there are any structural issues within the budget that need to be addressed moving forward?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you mean in terms of the number of agencies? How do you mean in particular?

Mr COWDREY: Structural issues in terms of expenditure across departments.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said when I first became Treasurer, Treasury have provided me some medium-term modelling about what the state finances would look like beyond the forward estimates if the state government had continued spending at the rate that had been incurred by the previous Liberal government. We made it clear that that was unsustainable.

While we have been able to deploy additional resources because of additional revenues coming into the budget, as I said yesterday at the UDIA function, which I think you were present at, we cannot assume that the state's economy is going to continue performing as strongly as it has in recent months. It is pretty clear that the national economy is not going to continue performing as strongly as it has in recent months, either. While the national economy is in large part driving additional GST revenues to states and territories, including South Australia, and the state's economy is delivering additional revenues through higher payroll tax receipts and so on, we cannot assume that that rate of revenue growth is going to be sustained on an ongoing basis.

That is why in this budget you will see that the economic growth forecasts have been reduced. Our revenue growth forecasts and our overall revenue forecasts have been calibrated in conjunction with those economic forecasts. While we have been able to increase resources to those agencies that have pressures on them, we have had to limit it to the extent that the budget can still get back into surplus after several years of recording deficits and forecast growing surpluses across the forwards.

I agree, I guess, if the proposition behind your question is: can we continue to ratchet up expenditure to the extent we have been able to do in this financial year on an ongoing basis, I think the short answer is that I do not think we can, and that is why the budget does not anticipate that we do.

Mr COWDREY: If we go to workforce summary, and changes, in particular on page 141, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, it references the Commercial and Economics Hydrogen Group being shifted into the Office of Hydrogen Power SA. What was the original FTE count of the Commercial and Economics Group within Treasury, and how many remain after that transfer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take it on notice to provide you the specifics, but essentially the previous government had released an expression of interest over the broader land area around Port Bonython, and part of the Commercial and Economics team was running that process. They have continued to maintain responsibility for that, as in those people have continued to maintain responsibility for that.

Given that settling happens—which is probably of direct interest to you, Chair—and given the correlation between releasing that land to the market and what the state is trying to achieve in fostering a hydrogen industry, those people in the Commercial and Economics team, as you say, have been transferred to that other area, which I think is an attached office to DEM. I think, roughly, we have gone from about 15 staff, and I am not sure if that is FTE or headcount, maybe down to half or just less than half of that. I will get you those specific figures once I can confirm them.

Mr COWDREY: Shifting tack to Budget Paper 3, page 10, and contained within total expenses moving forward, you made reference in question time yesterday to an allocation having been put aside for the university merger. Are you able to give us an indication of the quantum of money that has been put aside for that merger?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not at this stage, no.

Mr COWDREY: You are not able to indicate whether it is in the band of $50 million to $100 million, whether it is in the band of $100 million to $200 million, if it is in the band of $200 million to $300 million, or if it is roughly $400 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am not able to give an indication. The reason is that the government has taken the view that, if the universities resolve amongst themselves separately that they want to pursue a merger, the government's view is that in a range of limited ways it would be prepared to find ways to support that, but we are not at that juncture yet, no decision has been taken and it is open to the government to not provide support to those universities if they do not decide of their own volition to merge.

That is why we have not provided a specific funding line in the budget for this. We do not want to, I guess, signal broadly what appetite the government may have to support a voluntary merger. Our view about supporting a merger in the future, if it is not voluntary, may change. That is why we are not disclosing in what way we might be supportive and what quantum of funding that might involve.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, did you just say that an involuntary merger was on the cards?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What we have said, consistent with the Premier's comments yesterday, is that should the universities voluntarily, of their own volition, decide to pursue a merger, terrific. It is open to the government then to find ways to support that effort, and we feel comfortable that the budget has sufficient capacity within it for a range of measures that can support that merger.

If they do not decide to voluntarily merge then, as the Premier said yesterday, we will seek to re-establish a merger commission to find ways in which the universities can merge. In that event, if that is necessary, we may change our view about to what extent we provide ways of supporting a merger. So that is why we have not been specific about in what way we might support a merger and to what extent that would have an impact on the state's finances.

Mr COWDREY: Can you rule out that there is any capital component being considered as part of that allocation that has been put aside?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not making any comments about how we might support the merger, save for the question that the deputy—

Mr COWDREY: So there is a capital component?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Save for the comment that I made yesterday in question time that the state does not believe it would have a role in funding expenditures that would be incurred by the universities for things like staff redundancies, for example, because that is not what we would see as our role. In fact, we would need to—

Mr COWDREY: Do you have a location in mind for the new building?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry?

Mr COWDREY: Do you have a location in mind for the capital spend?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For what capital spend?

Mr COWDREY: The one that you have not ruled out?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Right, yes. I have not also ruled out establishing an Orlando-like space base and building a rocket with taxpayer funds with the name of the new institution and launching it towards Jupiter, either.

Mr COWDREY: You did cancel the space park down at Adelaide Airport.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry?

Mr COWDREY: You did cancel the space park down at Adelaide Airport.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cancelled the space park down at—

Mr COWDREY: Adelaide Airport.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cancelled the space park down at Adelaide Airport.

Mr COWDREY: You took the funding away.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So me, as Treasurer, cancelled the funding down at Adelaide Airport. Is that your statement to the parliament?

Mr COWDREY: The funding has been removed and reinstated to separate industry support for the space sector. That is what your budget paper reads.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Right, and so the allegation is that I cancelled the proposition at Adelaide Airport?

Mr COWDREY: Pardon me? No, the proposition was put to you whether the funds have been diverted, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If we are changing tack, if we are changing the question, I am happy to go into the detail—

The CHAIR: If we are going in this direction, what is the budget line?

Mr COWDREY: That is alright. Let's shift to the same budget line in regard to the allocation for Gather Round. Does the reported $100 million fee associated with being payable to the AFL to secure Gather Round sit as a contingency within Treasury, or where does it sit?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot make a comment about the speculation about the fee necessarily, and I think just about everyone understands why that is a commercially sensitive figure. So while you may speculate about it, I do not make any comment as to whether it is $1 or whether it is an amount higher than that.

Mr COWDREY: I think we can safely say it is higher than that, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it could be; it could be $2, that is true. It probably is not, but it could be. The way in which we provide funding for that is through an appropriation to the responsible department, which I think is the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That would occur for the financial year when any funds need to be paid for that event. In terms of how they pay that, that would be a question that would need to be taken up with Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Premier.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to Budget Paper 1, page 13, where you have outlined the Riverland flood relief programs and funds, are you able to confirm for the committee how much has been allocated for each fund or program and how much has been exhausted or spent out of each fund and program? Would you like me to run through one by one?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You can run through it, but I suspect you do not have the detail, so it might be more helpful to the committee if I do. The different assistances that are provided under the package that had been announced by the government are personal hardship emergency grants and to date we have spent $411,000 on that.

Mr COWDREY: What was the total value of the fund?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is $194 million. For rental assistance—

Mr COWDREY: No, for that particular project, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will just go through it and I will come back to you. For rental assistance, which is up to $2,000 for singles and $5,000 for families, expenditure to date is $258,000. The Generator Grant Program is $537,000. The Business Early Closure Grant is $1.77 million. Financial counselling is $949,000. The Business Levee Embankments Remediation and Construction Grants are $962,000. The Business Levee Embankment Engineering Grant support is $14,000. The levee works expenditure to date is $10.7 million. The fee waivers for houseboat and tourism operators is $235,000. The houseboat moorings and stormwater pumping support payments are $501,000. The Primary Producer Irrigation Infrastructure Grants are $2.259 million. Purchases of additional sandbags is $4.835 million.

Tourism recovery and support, which includes the voucher campaigns, is $2.066 million. The Community Recovery Fund support is $869,000. The funding for the Community Recovery Coordinator, which is Alex Zimmermann, is $152,000. The mental health support package is $889,000. I do not have a figure as yet for infrastructure remediation.

In terms of other assistance that was subsequently announced on 3 January, legal assistance services was $250,000 for legal advice and support to the communities. The Essential Services Reconnection Property Assessment Program was $265,000. The Coordinated Waste Management Program is $14 million, which is an estimate to the end of the financial year, not necessarily what has been incurred at the time these figures were put together. The Small Business Recovery Grant is $801,000. The Primary Producer Recovery Grants are $4.119 million and the blackwater allocation, which was for fish clean-up, is $230,000.

In terms of some of the other expenditures, $1.5 million was spent on booking short-term accommodation by the South Australian Housing Authority, $1.42 million has been expended to date on Small Business Industry Support Grants, $100,000 has been spent on the primary industries' family and business support efforts from specifically the Department for Environment and Water. The council disaster operations funding that we provided to the council is $3.941 million. The marina mooring strengthening expenditure is $68,000.

The travel assistance payment, which was the additional payments we made for people on low incomes who did not have access to their regular ferry services, is $149,000 to date. There was an allocation for fire service false alarm waivers. I do not have any details on that; that may indicate that that has not been accessed as yet. The land tax, stamp duty and emergency services levy relief: we have had $139,000 of relief from those liabilities approved to date. Road repairs for DIT: $10.59 million has been spent to date. I do not have estimates for private Crown land licence fee waivers yet from the Department for Environment and Water.

I do not have an estimate as yet for the tourism recovery further round. The South Australian Housing Authority reestablishment grants: $241,000 has been expended to date. I do not have an estimate to date for the Aboriginal heritage support payments. The additional support for River Murray offices for members of parliament is additional staffing resources for the two local MPs up there. Additional funding has been approved, but I do not have a final figure because those staff have been extended to the end of this calendar year.

They are all of the expenditures to date. In many areas there are significant expenses which are still to be incurred, in particular road reinstatement and recovery but also waste removal. For any of those programs that I have gone through which are subject to, underspends is not the right word but where we have allocated less money than we thought we might have ended up allocating, the government is still to consider some of the reinstatement demands which the community are going to have, in particular on levees. So we may end up spending a lot more in some areas than we thought, even though there has been potentially a lower take-up of some of the supports than what we had originally anticipated.

I am hoping that by the end of this calendar year, and perhaps as we put together the Mid-Year Budget Review, I will have a much clearer picture on how we are going with the expenditure of the $194 million, but I should foreshadow now that there are likely to be significant reallocations within some of these expenditure lines to make sure that we have funding available for those emerging areas of pressure. That example I gave of levees but also road reinstatement and waste removal are likely to be the three key areas.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, taking you to Budget Paper 5, page 54, can you explain the process undertaken to award the Croatian Club with a grant through the budget process?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice and probably refer that to the agency that was involved in that discussion. It was not a process that was superintended by Treasury and Finance, but I will see what details I can get and make those available.

Mr COWDREY: So you have no idea whatsoever whether it was conducted through an open and competitive process?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was not a process that was managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, so I did not have a direct involvement in it. I will see what details I can find for you, and I will bring that back in a subsequent response.

Mr COWDREY: Who approved the payment, Treasurer?

The CHAIR: I think this comes under Rec and Sport, so you might want to—

Mr COWDREY: The budget measures are approved by Treasury, Chair.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that in the Budget Measures Statement it comes under the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, so, as I said, I will find out what I can and bring you back those details.

Mr COWDREY: Do you approve the budget measures, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The budget went to cabinet, so all of cabinet has a collective role in approving all of the measures, not just in Budget Paper 5 but in all of the other budget related parameters, so, yes.

Mr COWDREY: So there was no discussion in that paper as to whether it was an open and competitive process? That detail was not something that you sought to identify when it went to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not going to comment on what detail went to cabinet, no.

Mr COWDREY: Did any members of cabinet or staff declare conflicts of interest throughout the decision-making process in regard to that grant?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not going to discuss any detail about what was presented to cabinet or the deliberations of cabinet.

Mr COWDREY: A rather similar organisation offered the same opportunity to make submissions for funding in this regard.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, it has not been a process that the Department of Treasury and Finance has been involved in. We did not have a role of superintendents or management of the process. You will see in the Budget Measures Statement it is specifically listed under a different department, so I will see what—

Mr COWDREY: Yes, but you are the Treasurer. Are you comfortable that the process was undertaken in a way that you were happy to support?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to give you some—

Mr COWDREY: You said cabinet has proved it—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: —so it is a yes or no question.

The CHAIR: And argument. It opens up absolutely everything. Can we go back to budget lines that we are discussing at the moment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I can answer the question like this: all of the measures in the Budget Measures Statement have been approved by cabinet, so there is a lawful basis for those allocations of funding, and you will see that—

Mr COWDREY: I did not ask if it was lawful. I said: are you happy with the process that was undertaken?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am happy it is lawful, and once cabinet makes a decision funds are then allocated, funding is appropriated to that agency, and expenditure authority is lawfully given to that agency to give effect to that decision that cabinet has made. I am comfortable that cabinet has met its responsibilities, and while I am not up to speed with the progress of that particular grant, whether it has actually been affected yet—

Mr COWDREY: You do not ask questions about the process whatsoever?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not answer questions about cabinet processes, information that was provided to cabinet or the cabinet deliberative process because there is a longstanding convention in executive government and in the Westminster parliamentary system that those discussions and those deliberations are sacrosanct.

Mr COWDREY: I will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 159, how many staff, as of today, are employed within Electorate Services?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In the Electorate Services unit within Treasury?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that on page 159 of that same Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, we have an estimated result of 38.6 FTEs.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, Mr Paul Tatarelli was a well-respected public servant, roundly regarded as being fair and decent, and at all times having applied impartial judgements relating to electorate office and global expenditure determinations. We have some concerns in regard to the circumstances of Mr Tatarelli's departure. Are you able to provide any more detail to the committee?

Ms HUTCHESSON: Which budget line?

Mr COWDREY: The same budget line.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was not involved, as you can imagine, in any arrangements of the change of employment of Mr Tatarelli, but I am advised by the Under Treasurer and the Deputy Under Treasurer that Mr Tatarelli was looking for a change in role. He is still employed within Treasury and Finance and has taken on another role.

Mr COWDREY: Who is replacing Mr Tatarelli?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that the role has been advertised and the process of filling that role is ongoing.

Mr COWDREY: Did Mr Tatarelli apply for his new position within Treasury, and was it advertised?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that there was a vacancy in the unit within Treasury that he has transferred to and it was a lateral transfer. I am not sure what amount of detail I can provide in terms of if there were other applicants and so on. You can appreciate that human resources matters of this nature are reasonably sensitive. I am happy to take the matter on notice and see what information I can provide, if that is of interest to the member.

Mr COWDREY: When you say the position was empty, was that position created for Mr Tatarelli, or did it exist prior to him taking it on?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that SAFA had been looking for additional resources to assist them with work or higher workloads in some areas and that that is the range of work that Mr Tatarelli is undertaking in his role.

Mr COWDREY: Was his departure in any way related to the disagreement with the Treasurer's office regarding the global compliance classifications of teddy bears?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Mr COWDREY: Did Mr Tatarelli ever raise any other concerns with you in regard to issues of compliance with global allowance expenditure?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Were they issues that he had a disagreement with the Treasurer's office about in regard to the classification?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would not characterise it like that. I think it is the role of that position, whether it is Mr Tatarelli or otherwise, to provide not only information but I think there is also a reporting regime where members of all sides of politics may be incurring expenses against their global allowance, which are not specifically covered for by the guidelines, seeking a determination of the Treasurer of the day as to whether that is appropriate. For example, it has only been since the election of this government that the shopping bags that are distributed by nearly all MPs have been formally allowed under the global allowance guidelines.

I think I am correct in saying that is a change that I instituted since becoming Treasurer, as well as making it clear in the global allowance guidelines that members should not be using their global allowance to make gifts of flowers, which a number of MPs had. In the past, for example, whether it was former Treasurer Rob Lucas or former Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, they were receiving minutes from either Mr Tatarelli, or his predecessors or subordinates to Mr Tatarelli, drawing those sorts of expenditures to the Treasurer's attention, seeking approval for those expenditures because they were not specifically provided for by the global allowance guidelines.

Whether it has been Mr Tatarelli or other people within electorate services, or whether it has been Mr Tatarelli's predecessors, I maybe would not go so far as to say it is a regular occurrence but it is a not infrequent occurrence for approvals for these expenses to be sought by the Treasurer of the day where the global allowance guidelines do not specifically allow for or do not specifically preclude expenditure on certain items.

Mr COWDREY: Let me just be clear from the answer that you provided: you have made it clear that flowers are not sufficient to be gifts under the global allowance guidelines but teddy bears are?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have it in front of me but you can use your global allowance for wreaths—so for an ANZAC Day service—which may or may not be floral. Sometimes they are laurel leaves, sometimes MPs have flowers on their wreaths, and we have tried to clarify. Again, if I get any of this incorrect, I will bring it back but my recollection of the changes that have been made is to specify that for flowers, wreaths are okay, because I think we all understand that local members have a usual role in laying wreaths, for example, at ANZAC Day dawn services at their local RSLs, etc., but the gift—

Mr COWDREY: No—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am finishing the answer. The gifting of flowers—for example, MPs in the past have got a bouquet of flowers or a bunch of flowers that they have taken to somebody who is celebrating a significant birthday or a significant milestone—we have tried to clarify that that is not what the use of flowers should be for even though MPs have used their global allowance in the past and had that expenditure approved in the past because it was not specifically precluded by the global allowance guidance notes.

With the teddy bears, for example, there was no specific guidance in those guidance notes about whether, in providing awards to school students, you could not make that in the form of a teddy bear. In that case, for young primary school students, while it might have been envisaged that an award might be a certificate—framed or otherwise—or some sort of trophy or medal or something like that which previously had been given by MPs, this was the first time that an MP had chosen to gift a soft toy.

As I explained at the time, including on morning radio, I have to make sure that expenditures in this area are done in accordance with the rules. If the rules are silent on expenditures, it does not provide a basis for me or for treasurers to say that that expenditure cannot be incurred. That is why we have updated the guidance notes. In fact, I think former Treasurer Lucas was looking at updating the guidance notes; I cannot remember whether he did or not. In almost every term of parliament there is some change to the guidance notes, as new and different types of expenditures are incurred by members. Some of those are allowed and specifically provided for, and some of those are specifically precluded.

Mr COWDREY: I will have to keep that in mind in the future if I go to a school. Giving a flower is no good; giving a teddy bear is fine. Moving to travel documents: why did the Treasurer not provide his proactive disclosure for close to six months but then decided to release it yesterday, in regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 140, Ministerial—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was not aware that was the case but I can see what information I can find and bring it back to you.

Mr COWDREY: Do you think you have complied with PC35 in regard to the timeliness of your proactive disclosures and setting a good example for other ministers?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was not aware, as I said, that that was the circumstance of the provision of that information.

Mr COWDREY: It just happened to be put up yesterday, the day before estimates.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You might recall—

Mr COWDREY: It was circumstance.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You might recall what I was doing yesterday: I was answering questions in question time. I was not sitting at a computer, loading information onto a website.

Mr COWDREY: When did you intend to publish them, then?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While it is my responsibility as the minister to ensure that this information is published, it is not actually me that does the publication. What I have already indicated I will do is find out what information I can around the circumstances of its publication and bring that back for you.

Mr COWDREY: Why did the Treasurer not release his travel-related documents when they were first sought via a freedom of information application? They have since been released after an external review with the Ombudsman.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, while you may have the impression that I as Treasurer or that ministers in general are personally responsible for the management of freedom of information applications, that was not the case in this regard. We have a delegated—

Mr COWDREY: You are the lead officer, are you not?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, but I have staff who do that for me, and I take their judgement into account in the event that I am the one who signs off on a determination to my office.

The CHAIR: Could you specify which volume and which page and what budget line we are referring to?

Mr COWDREY: This is in regard to the electorate, the ministerial office expenses, page 140, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, as cited already. In those documents that the Treasurer released, it was revealed that your original plans were to travel to San Francisco, New York and London. Why did that change, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For a range of reasons. I do not have the details in front of me but travel dates change regularly when ministers are planning their travel, because obviously we have a range of responsibilities and travel needs to occur in amongst those responsibilities—so a change in travel dates. There had been an enormous amount of work which had been undertaken by—

Mr COWDREY: The dates were roughly the same, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not finished answering the question. Maybe if you listen to the answer, you might have an indication as to what informed the changes to the plans. The change of dates might have informed that. As I was in the middle of saying, an enormous amount of work went in particularly through the government's travel agency—QBT I think it is—to come up with dozens and dozens and dozens of different flight options, because while we were—

Mr COWDREY: Because none of them were Qantas?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, we looked at both Qantas and non-Qantas flights because of the expense of those and trying to find not only the right balance between the cost of flights but also the cost of flights and how it lined up with the dates that I was available to travel and the itinerary that would be forming part of that travel. There had been many different iterations of this trip. In fact, I had originally planned to travel in November 2022 when flights per person were, I think, approximately $9,000 or $10,000 higher per person. So we had put an extensive amount of effort into this trip to make sure that we could both achieve what we were hoping to, going and meeting—

Mr COWDREY: Which was what, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —face-to-face with the ratings agencies, leading investment agencies that conduct work on behalf of the government, but also speaking to a range of financial institutions about what their perspective of South Australia was.

Mr COWDREY: They moved from London to New York?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are you referring to the Bank of America, that I met with? They have not been very big in London for some time. Any other interjections, or did you want to listen to the answer?

Mr COWDREY: You can continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. So for a range of financial institutions, their perspective of South Australia. As you might appreciate, this government is very proud of the progress we have made as a state since 2002 in our global leadership on renewable energy and continuing that with our plans for a hydrogen industry in South Australia. As global financiers and also shareholders generally across listed companies are increasingly pressing companies to conduct their operations in adherence to ESG principles, South Australia has a particularly good story to tell, so that was part of it.

Also understanding the financial institutions' perspective on the United States economy and how that might impact the global economy and also the Australian economy as well. Then, of course, meeting with ratings agencies to ensure that we had a good relationship, given that face-to-face interactions were necessarily curtailed over the previous couple of years with COVID and also meeting with our lead reinsurance provider, Aon, directly.

This was to talk about not only their perspective on the global reinsurance market and how that might impact the costs that we have in our reinsurance activities but also the additional efforts that those reinsurance agencies are putting into risk identification and how jurisdictions such as South Australia can go about assessing, reporting and where possible mitigating against those risks that impact on our insurance premiums.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, did you stay at an Airbnb while in the United States?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not that I recall.

Mr COWDREY: Did you visit an Airbnb while in the United States?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not that I recall.

Mr COWDREY: Can you explain why an Airbnb transaction appears on the Under Treasurer's credit card statement?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not immediately, no.

Mr COWDREY: Could you ask him?

Mr PERSSE: I booked an Airbnb accommodation in Wallaroo for a country cabinet, if that is the only reference that I have ever stayed in an Airbnb for work.

Mr COWDREY: It is the day after the Century Park Hotel in Los Angeles.

Mr PERSSE: I would have to see the dates, sorry.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do recall that in Los Angeles we stayed at whatever that motel was—I think that was the Century Park motel—and that, because we were catching the midnight flight from Los Angeles back to Australia, one room was booked for one additional period—I am not sure whether it was a full night or not—to allow the three of us to change out of our suits into more casual attire in readiness for that plane trip. I do not know whether it relates to that or not, but we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Mr COWDREY: Was that potentially done through Airbnb?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take it on notice and come back to you. I am not sure that we have that detail today.

Mr COWDREY: Why was the government travel agency not used to book that room?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know. I could speculate and say that maybe it was cheaper to make that booking through an alternative agency, but that would presuppose that that is indeed the reference that you have to Airbnb. I do not have these details in front of me. I came prepared for discussion about the budget papers. I can come back to you.

Mr COWDREY: I am happy to provide it to the Chair to distribute, as mentioned in his earlier statement.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would rather provide a thorough and accurate representation of what occurred than accept whatever your speculation is.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps Mr Persse can have a look at his own credit card statement and provide us a reference to his diary as to when he was in Wallaroo.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As you might imagine, the Department of Treasury and Finance has access to all credit card statements. We will go back and investigate what the circumstances were and bring it back for a thorough and accurate answer.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide us information as to why the Under Treasurer is refusing to release the credit card receipts that are associated with these credit card statements?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that away and look at it. At first blush, I think our response would be that usually these documents may not be released through FOI because they have previously been proactively disclosed or will be proactively disclosed, but I am happy to investigate the circumstances.

Mr COWDREY: You have proactively disclosed the credit card statement. The receipts associated have not been proactively disclosed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that on notice and come back to you.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to your credit card statement that was conveniently released via proactive disclosure last night, as I understand it there are only two transactions for yourself while you were there. The associated costs of the hotel rooms, etc., appear to be on Mr Persse's credit card; he has paid for those expenses. Does your credit card statement include all taxpayer-funded expenses incurred by you on your trip?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am aware that each member of a travelling party, particularly to countries like the United States, is usually given an amount of cash to pay for things like incidental expenses, tipping and so on. There is a separate process that involves the department providing that amount of cash and then each member of the travelling party needing to do a reconciliation against the use of that cash. That would be an example of other taxpayers' funds that were used. Other taxpayers' funds, of course, were used to pay for the flights to and from the countries involved in that trip.

Mr COWDREY: So you only had two meals while you were in the US that taxpayers paid for?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, that is not my evidence to the committee. I am a far more voracious eater over a period of 10 days than just two meals.

Mr COWDREY: So we should see those appear on Mr Persse's credit card and Mr Leyson's credit card in the foreseeable future?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Potentially, or it may be the case that I paid for them privately.

Mr COWDREY: I am only discussing the arrangements in regard to taxpayer expenses.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Your question was: did I only have two meals while I was away? My answer was no. My evidence includes the fact that there were a number of occasions where I personally paid for meals.

Mr COWDREY: Good. In regard to the cash that was reconciled and repaid, was any cash not able to be reconciled with receipts?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice, but not to my immediate memory.

Mr COWDREY: I will move on to ratings agencies, if that is okay.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which budget paper?

Mr COWDREY: I assume any line of expenditure and any line—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you have a budget reference? This is the committee stage of the bill.

Mr COWDREY: —that relates to the ratings agencies' view on the budget, Treasurer. These are questions that have been put to every Treasurer. If you would like we can reference it to table 1.2 on page 7 around fiscal targets and outcomes, for which you have not met the target this year in regard to surplus and you have not met the target next year with regard to operating expenses growth. If you would like me to provide you with a budget reference—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is not my desire; it is the basic expectation of the committee stage of the bill that a clause is referenced. In this case that is the budget papers.

Mr COWDREY: Have the ratings agencies provided any draft, final assessments or issue of comments on the budget, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, if you are unaware of the standing orders of this place, this is the committee stage of a bill, and when you are discussing a bill you provide a clause reference. Given that this is the Appropriation Bill—

Mr COWDREY: I just did, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the way you do this is to provide a reference to the budget papers.

Mr COWDREY: Have the ratings agencies provided any draft, final assessments or issue of comments—

The CHAIR: For my benefit, can you repeat where we are?

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 3, page 7, fiscal targets and outcomes. Have the ratings agencies provided any draft, final assessments or issue of comments on the budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: As I understand it, Moody's issued a comment earlier this month on 15 June, and we have also had a credit outlook statement provided on 26 June. Are you able to table—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Why did you ask the preceding question: had they issued any advice? Were you hoping to catch me out? Were you hoping to get me misleading the parliament about whether, straight after a state budget has been released, the ratings agencies have responded? I mean, come on!

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, I am doing nothing more than providing questions to the house asking whether you have received the documents.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You asked me a question: have they released any information? You already know the answer and then you follow up with the detail of it.

Mr COWDREY: You do not need to be touchy, Treasurer, in regard to the ratings agencies.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not touchy.

Mr COWDREY: When did you last meet with the ratings agencies in person over the last year and where?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You mean in total or the people who are responsible for—

Mr COWDREY: You personally, Treasurer. When I say, 'When did you', I mean you personally.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Over the last 12 months I have met with the ratings agencies on separate occasions. The most recent I think was in January this year in the United States and preceding that it was with the Australian—

Mr COWDREY: Can you break that down by Standard and Poor's, Fitch and Moody's?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, sure, I am happy to provide that detail. Before that, personally with the people who provided—

Mr COWDREY: Who did you meet with in New York? Was it all three?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, I will provide you that detail. Preceding that, over the last 12 months I also met with the local representatives of those firms after the release of the previous state budget, the 2022-23 state budget.

Mr COWDREY: So you are not happy to provide the committee now? When you have the information—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to provide it. I just do not have the detail in front of me.

Mr COWDREY: You cannot remember who you met with in New York?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have that specific detail, no.

Mr COWDREY: So you are telling me that the Treasurer of this state cannot turn his mind back six months as to the meetings he had?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can, but I want to make sure I provide that information accurately to the committee. I have confirmed that I have met with them, I have provided you with the times I have met with them, and I have offered to provide you with the detail of meeting with them. You FOI my diary every two weeks.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, and you provide me no detail, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So you do not have the detail either?

Mr COWDREY: Yes, but I do not have it to remember—you do.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So yes, you do have the detail, but you cannot provide it today, and then you have an expectation that I should be able to recall it from memory?

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, your diary that you provided me for your trip—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mate, get your act together.

Mr COWDREY: —is entirely redacted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Get your act together.

Mr COWDREY: Your diary that you have provided me for you trip is entirely redacted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How many times—

Mr COWDREY: I cannot recall information that I do not have.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —are we going to go through this charade where you try to ask me some leading question to catch me out, to try to get me to mislead the parliament, and in the next question you make it clear that you already have the information? It is juvenile—juvenile.

Mr COWDREY: You really are not too interested in providing answers today, are you, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, I am more than happy—

Mr COWDREY: You can run down the clock as much as you wish.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am more than happy to provide this detail, and I have already committed to you, twice now, to provide it to you.

Mr COWDREY: Can you provide comment to the committee in regard to the issuer comment and the credit outlook statement?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Mr COWDREY: Yes, can you provide your commentary in response to the credit outlook statement and the issuer comment?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. As you know, the state has been placed on negative watch since 2020, after the release of the previous Liberal government's 2019-20 state budget. My understanding is that the ratings agencies are cognisant of the impact of COVID on state and territory budgets and balance sheets. They have tried to be as accommodating as they can of the deteriorated budget positions of states and territories. We should also point out, of course, that not every state is impacted in the same way. You only have to look at the budget outcomes that Western Australia has been delivering, or that Queensland has delivered in the current financial year, to know that that is the case.

My understanding is that S&P's commentary, since the release of this current budget, is that they have noted the budget forecasts, tracked their expectations with revenue growth supporting the AA+ long-term rating. Moody's published comments, again on this same budget, indicating that they expected that South Australia would achieve the target of a net operating surplus by 2023-24. But I think in the next week or the next two weeks—and, again, I know it is deeply offensive to you, but I am happy to provide specific details as to the times of those meetings and who I am meeting with—I will be meeting with them in person, face to face, where we will have more detailed discussions.

Mr COWDREY: Do you think there is any risk to the state of a ratings downgrade?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When you are placed on negative watch, by definition yes. That is why ratings agencies issue a credit rating and then they have an additional stable outlook, for example, or a negative watch. That is to indicate when there is a risk to the state's finances of a change in credit rating. Until that negative watch gets removed, that remains a live risk. But, as I have been pointing out, as we have released the budget papers, there are improvements to the state's budget position. Our level of indebtedness in this current financial year is lower than what had been previously forecast by the previous government. The net debt to revenue ratio has substantially improved compared to where it was—

Mr COWDREY: Revenue has substantially improved too.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is exactly right. The budget is larger. There is more revenue coming into the state's coffers. There is a greater budget capacity, and it is lucky that there is because you have to remember that this state had bipartisan commitment to deliver two substantial projects: the north-south corridor upgrade and the New Women's and Children's Hospital. The previous government had continued the laughable position, since late 2019, that the cost of a new Women's and Children's Hospital would be $1.9 billion.

Of course, that was never going to be the case—never going to be the case. Not only that, but in their last budget, released before the last election, only $884 million was allocated towards that $1.9 billion project. So when the previous government forecast that debt would reach $33.6 billion in the 2024-25 financial year, and the net debt to revenue ratio would reach 129.6 per cent, those figures were always going to worsen because additional debt would need to come onto the state's books to not only complete that project but complete that project at a higher cost in later years.

Similarly, the previous government maintained the position for more than 18 months for the tunnels project that it would only cost $9.95 billion, when pretty much everybody else in the South Australian community knew it was going to be substantially more than that. To further that point, there was I think from memory less than a third of that total cost that had been budgeted to be spent across the forward estimates of the last Liberal government's previous budget.

So while they estimated that debt would hit $33.6 billion in the 2024 financial year and in that year the net debt to revenue ratio would reach $129.6 billion, if the budget outlook forecasts and revenue growth had not improved to the extent that they have, the debt position and that key debt metric would be substantially worse than what it is now. So it is through the growth of the budget—it is through the greater financial capacity of the budget—that we have actually been able to maintain our commitment to those projects and in particular at a more accurate cost.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, I will take you to the Fitch Ratings' action commentary from Wednesday 17 August, which was handed down shortly after last year's budget. In that commentary, particularly in regard to ratings' sensitivities, they call out that the key risk to any negative rating action or downgrade would be weak fiscal discipline or failure to control capex.

Given that we have seen blowouts across every government agency this year bar two across headlines and we have revised scopes and budgets for the two projects that you have just referenced—the north-south corridor, which is now $5 billion more than it was at this point last year when this commentary was provided, and the Women's and Children's Hospital project, which is now significantly more expensive than when this commentary was provided on last year's budget—do you think you have taken the steps necessary to ensure that the ratings agencies do not make changes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a matter for them, but the reason we have been able to do that is because, as I have spent the morning pointing out to you, the strength of the revenues flowing to the state has been substantially more than what was previously anticipated. The capacity of the budget is substantially larger than what it has been previously and it has given us the capacity to fund these projects. The evidence of that is not only a lower debt position in the current financial year than what was previously forecast by the previous government but a substantially improved net debt to revenue ratio, which demonstrates that the state budget has additional capacity to fund higher capital expenditures.

Mr COWDREY: Have you had Treasury update or calculate the liability burden for the state?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which liability?

Mr COWDREY: The economic liability burden as calculated as part of the Fitch review.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you mean the net financial liabilities?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The net financial liabilities are set out in the budget papers. On page 62, table 4.9, it goes through the key balance sheet indicators, including net financial liabilities, net financial worth and net worth.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the land releases, Budget Paper 1, page 6, that were announced by the government as part of this budget, what allocation was made in the budget in regard to those land releases?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will provide as much information as I have. You are referring to the 25,000 allotments land release?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The majority of those—and, again, if any of this is not correct I will make sure I come back and correct it—my understanding is the majority of that land is held by Renewal SA, so when releasing it to market there will be some impact on their finances in terms of when they expect to realise revenues from those land sales and then what their revenues look like or what they materialise against, I guess, the book value of that land and what their revenue estimates were otherwise going to be in that financial year.

In general, that will be the impact on Renewal SA's balance sheet. How that actually materialises on their balance sheet and then in turn how that might impact the state's finances—the returns, for example, that we might get or any dividend we might get from Renewal SA—I will come back and provide the particulars on.

Mr COWDREY: So Concordia is owned by Renewal SA?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I might have to—

Mr COWDREY: Could you provide us a breakdown on notice on who—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: —on what the ownership structure is for each of those?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is the information that I am sure Minister Champion and Renewal SA would readily have. If it is not taken up there I am happy to take it on notice and bring it back to this committee.

Mr COWDREY: What allocations have been made for supporting infrastructure like schools and roads, etc., in regard to each of those land releases?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Another announcement, and I cannot remember if we highlighted it in the budget papers, but in Planning and Land Use Services (PLUS, as it is called) within the Department for Trade and Investment a unit is being established—I cannot recall the specific name of it but it is basically the infrastructure planning unit—to ensure that the infrastructure requirements not just for those land releases but, generally speaking, for development across South Australia are adequately and accurately determined to make sure that we are not stuck in the same situation as we are with Mount Barker, for example.

There, the previous Labor government, back in—I cannot remember what year it was—the early to mid-2000s rezoned and made that available land for release to the market. The infrastructure development arrangements that were put in place there are significantly improved upon, because while that particular land release at Mount Barker tried to ensure that infrastructure was rolled out adequately in concert with the way the land was being developed, I do not think any of us could sit here and pretend that that has been a success.

So there is a new unit that has been established within Planning and Land Use Services in that department. They will be mapping that out. I am not sure if they have any particular estimates on that as yet, but, again, that might be a question better put to Minister Champion to get better particulars on.

Mr COWDREY: So there are no allocations whatsoever in the forward estimates in regard to any infrastructure for those years?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There are always allocations in agency budgets in areas of responsibility for additional infrastructure, whether that is in transport, in education, or in SA Water, but—

Mr COWDREY: But there is nothing specific to these projects?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let me give you an example. SA Water, for example, across their forward estimates has an allowance for capital expenditure for network augmentation. The education department has allowances within its budget for enrolment growth. It also has allowances for capital expenditure both on existing facilities and also new facilities.

So there are existing allocations in agencies, but I cannot be specific. I cannot give you an accurate figure as to what is committed for those particular projects and over what time frame because I am not sure whether that new unit has undertaken that. I guess suffice to say that, as there has been for many years, existing government agencies continue to have provisions in their forward spending to ensure that new development is supported.

Mr COWDREY: You would assume, though, for a suburb with 10,000 new homes like Dry Creek, with no existing infrastructure whatsoever, that a significant allocation would be necessary. Was there a reason that was not announced as a separate pool of funding with the rest of the package?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, there is. There is a reason. I do not anticipate that all 10,000 dwellings will be established over the budget's four-year forward estimates period. If there are any further infrastructure arrangements, which are to be put in place by Planning and Land Use Services, I am not aware of whether that detail has been finalised yet and to what extent the government will be paying for it, to what extent money will be recouped from people who end up developing that land.

These infrastructure arrangements are likely to be funded over a longer period of time than the budget's four-year forward estimates, and while the government, through its agencies, will no doubt be spending some money towards them, that may not be the full extent of the infrastructure funding arrangements. Again, this is really something that Minister Champion is probably able to provide you with better particulars on.

Mr COWDREY: How many new housing releases do you believe will be available for purchase in each year of the forward estimates?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you mean out of the 25,000 or do you mean in total across the South Australian housing market?

Mr COWDREY: Out of the 25,000.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will refer you to Minister Champion. I am not sure when his estimates are. It is not today though, so you will have time to coordinate getting that question to him.

Mr COWDREY: Will the state government supplement any infrastructure costs associated with the land releases relevant to SA Water, as you have just touched upon, or will they be passing these costs on to South Australian water bill payers through a form of stealth tax?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: A what, sorry?

Mr COWDREY: A stealth tax.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, there will not be a stealth tax imposed by this government.

Mr COWDREY: So you will be providing supplementation for SA Water in regard to the SA Water infrastructure or supply?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There are three ways in which infrastructure can be funded. There are the charges that SA Water has and continues to levy for people who are connecting to their networks, and that arrangement will remain in place. There is the funding that SA Water has in its forward budgeting, its forward estimates, for network augmentation and new developments, which is already paid for by all South Australians' water bills. That was the case over the last four-year period between 2018 and 2022 when the previous Liberal government was in charge.

There is also the opportunity, if necessary, for the government to make a separate budget allocation centrally for augmentation charges, but I am not sure that any decision has been made so as to provide me, or even Minister Champion, the ability to be able to answer, in particular, what the total cost is and what the share will be across those three different ways of funding it.

Mr COWDREY: I am just asking your preferred method not the exact quantity.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I just outlined that there are three ways in which they are funded, and I imagine that those three ways will continue to be the ways in which they are funded. They are either funded out of SA Water's forward capital program, which is already provided for by South Australian water bill payers, or they are paid for by the developer as lots or allotments and connections are required, and SA Water reaches those arrangements with developers, or they are paid for, less usually I must say, by the budget.

I do not believe we have any particular allocation within the Budget Measures Statement or out of this budget for paying for those water augmentation charges—no, we do not, so it is likely to be those two. Your proposition that the government might introduce, in your terms, a stealth tax is a complete and utter furphy and rejected.

Mr COWDREY: Other than changing the dates, will the Treasurer be making any changes to the pricing orders that will apply to SA Water over the next regulatory period?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am yet to make a decision on that. The next regulatory determination period starts from 1 July next year, just over 12 months away, so there is quite some time to be thinking that through.

Mr COWDREY: Will the Treasurer rule out inflating SA Water's regulatory asset base for the whole of the next regulatory period?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not turned my mind to the pricing order, but we have always ensured that our pricing determination process is done by virtue of ESCOSA with significant input from SA Water and also the Department of Treasury and Finance, as in accordance with the National Water Initiative principles.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was found to be flawed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, say that again. Nothing to say or are you talking to your phone?

Mr COWDREY: Has the Auditor-General made any further request to you or your office or to the Department of Treasury and Finance in regard to any documents that have not been provided to him?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that if the Auditor-General makes requests for documents, that is done on a regular basis to all agencies directly. If the Auditor-General makes requests for specific documents like cabinet documents, that is done to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr COWDREY: Have you refused to provide any documents requested of you, your office or the department to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that the Auditor-General has specifically requested that I provide him documents. My assumption is that he has asked, as he normally would in the course of every year's annual work, that he gets documents from the Department of Treasury and Finance. I do not think any documents have been refused, no.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the stamp duty abolition that has been undertaken—I use the term 'abolition' very loosely because I think I have heard every other person in South Australia bar the government describe it as a concession for a certain group of people—can you explain to me: the government has allocated roughly $125 million towards this ($32 million, roughly, per year), and you are expecting a 3,800 person or household uptake each year. How many of those do you associate as being new builds versus land purchases?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, if you take the $32 million and you divide it by 3,800, the average stamp duty concession is $8,000, which equates to roughly a $250,000 house. I have looked at the house and land packages in some of the outer suburbs and the average price through there is $550,000 for a house and land package. Are you able to give us any degree of confidence that you do think that 3,800 people will be able to access that and that there is enough money in the budget to cover those purchases?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would almost be pleased if the uptake of first-home buyers exceeds our expectations, but we were careful to say in the budget papers that 3,800 first-home buyers would benefit from these measures. You have to appreciate that that is not necessarily 3,800 new first-home buyers who will be participating in the market. You have to I guess bear in mind that, putting aside the previous couple of years where the market was stimulated by the temporary HomeBuilder program, we would normally build somewhere between, off the top of my head, 8,000 and 11,000 new dwellings a year across South Australia, but I am happy to come back to you with that breakdown.

Mr COWDREY: How many people are you expecting to utilise the stamp duty concession?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Our estimate of the number of first-home buyers who will benefit is 3,800, but if you want a breakdown as to how many people are going to buy blocks versus how many people are going to buy newly constructed homes and so on, I am happy to provide that detail for you.

Mr COWDREY: You understand my line of questioning here, though, that $250,000 is not necessarily even enough to buy a block of land and if everybody is buying at that price, you are making an assumption that nobody is buying a house and land package or a newly built house, and then the underlying assumption would effectively be that everybody is buying a $250,000 block?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I understand the basis of your question.

Mr COWDREY: Do you think your 3,800 a year number is wildly inaccurate?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have any advice that makes me believe that to date, but, like I said, I am happy to provide some further particulars for you. The advice I have is that, in recent experience, the majority of first-home buyers who have used the First Home Owner Grant of $15,000 have been people who have bought a block of land and then sought to build. As you suppose, the stamp duty is only applied to the purchase of the block of land, rather than calculated on the cost of the subsequent build. In terms of providing further particulars as to how the policy is costed, I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Could you provide us with the underlying assumptions that sit behind the government's modelling in regard to the commitment as well?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As far as I can, yes.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the number of Treasury staff that are working from home in the department—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which budget paper are we looking at?

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 141. Does the department have a clear plan and time line in place for staff that are working from home to return back to the office and, if so, can you table that plan?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that I can provide you a documented plan, for a couple of reasons. One is that obviously a lot of workforces are still transitioning back to—I was going to say more normal working arrangements, but I am not sure there are normal working arrangements anymore. We went from a period, necessarily under COVID restrictions, of the vast majority, if not all people, basically working from home.

While a significant proportion of the workforce has returned to working from the office—and I am happy to come back to you with an estimate on how many people are back in the office and for what period during the week—it has been very clear, particularly in a central agency like Treasury, which does not have as great a service delivery responsibility, or does not have as great a client-facing or frontline role as other government agencies, that many employees want to continue accessing that workplace flexibility to some extent. It is something that I certainly, in principle, absolutely support.

I absolutely recognise the need—for the benefit of their work, for their careers and for their engagement with their colleagues—and the benefits of getting them back into the office, let alone the broader and wider economic benefits of having people working in the city. But you have to balance that with the fact that we want a modern, diverse, gender-balanced workforce in Treasury, and the simple fact is that people need greater flexibility in this day and age, particularly with responsibilities such as caring for children, having children at school, caring for parents or grandparents, and so on.

People increasingly need—not want, but actually need—workplace flexibility. One silver lining out of the experience of COVID is that major employers, public or private sector, have now more significantly made the change to offering workplace flexibility.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to take on notice the exact number of employees that are working 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 or the equivalent from home?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, I will provide you what detail I can. I think I could readily provide you the number of part-time workers, but I am not sure that is what you are asking. I think you are asking: how many people are working a number of days from home, and how many days are they working from home?

Mr COWDREY: Correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will try to provide what information we can but, as I am sure you might appreciate, it changes. A full-time person might be five days in the office one week and they might only be three days in the office the next. It might not be consistent. People may choose to work a greater proportion of the working week in the office during school term, for example, but try to work more flexibly during school holidays so that there is an adult present in the family home. It just varies.

To the extent that I can provide any information, perhaps if we cannot provide it at a department specific level, perhaps what we could do is speak with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Erma Ranieri, and see if she has been tracking this and whether we can provide some helpful particulars.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to SAPOL's proposed relocation, I cannot seem to find any allocation in the budget. Obviously there is going to be a significant impact in regard to SAPOL's operational expenses potentially from having to service, maintain and operate a multiple number of facilities. Are you able to provide any detail, in regard to the additional impact on SAPOL operations in their budget, of the change in approach to move from a Parklands-based mounted policing operations infrastructure to what is currently being proposed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: At some point, yes, we will be able to provide that information. That information is not settled as yet. There are 15 business units from SAPOL on the Thebarton barracks. The most prominent one of course, as you made reference to, is the mounted operations. It is not yet settled where they will be located although two preferred locations have been identified, one of which is—I do not know if it is in your patch or the member for West Torrens'—down near the airport. The other one is at Gepps Cross on government-owned land.

Depending on which of those options is settled on, and my understanding is that the decision between those two sites is imminent—those two options will have different costs, is what I am trying to say. I cannot be specific about that. As to the other business units out of those 15, some of those are being absorbed on existing SAPOL premises, some of those are being absorbed on other government premises, and some of those are being relocated to current non-government premises. I think, for accuracy and completeness, maybe it is best that I take that on notice and give you the details as we have them to hand.

Mr COWDREY: When the government made an announcement in regard to the relocation, there was a story in The Advertiser that cited that you had travelled to investigate equivalent policing operations interstate. Was that not an operational question, as to whether it was operationally feasible for SAPOL to make changes to their unit? Was there a reason for you to be there, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, because these things cost money and I wanted to be sure that the state government was only going to be paying for what was necessary in terms of the police's not only operational capability but what was necessary in terms of the scale and the scope of the facility. As you can imagine, there were almost myriad options for their relocation.

We could try to find 15 different locations for the 15 different business units. We could try to find one location for all 15 business units to go on. They all come with different not only operational requirements which you are right to presuppose in your question is not my bailiwick, but certainly the costs are and that is why I had a look interstate to see what arrangements had been made in those jurisdictions and what sort of costs were incurred.

Mr COWDREY: It is highly unusual, is it not, for the Treasurer himself to make that sort of travel? How many states did you visit and how many jurisdictions?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Two.

Mr COWDREY: Two. Are you able to name them for us?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was Queensland and Victoria.

Mr COWDREY: Are you happy for us to keep going?

The CHAIR: There are a few seconds left.

Mr COWDREY: A few seconds left. That is always good. Do you have ESCOSA here?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, not at this point in time.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to payroll tax thresholds, can I very quickly ask the Treasurer to take a couple of questions on notice just in regard to payroll tax. I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 35. How many businesses paid payroll tax in financial year 2021-22? How many businesses are paying payroll tax this year in FY 2022-23? How much are those additional businesses paying in terms of total payroll tax paid? What is the projection in terms of number of businesses in FY 2023-24 estimated to be paying payroll tax?

Can you provide a breakdown of the number of businesses for this financial year, the prior financial year and estimates over future financial years over the forward estimates to have payrolls in the range of $1.5 million to $1.75 million, $1.75 to $2 million, $2 million to $2½ million, $2½ million to $3 million, and $3 million and above ranges, and a total contribution to payroll tax of each range? Can you provide the actuals for FY 2021-22 and this current financial year when they become available?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of the Department of Treasury and Finance completed.

Sitting suspended from 11:01 to 11:16.

Membership:

Ms Wortley substituted for Mr Odenwalder.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms T. Pribanic, Deputy Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr S. Bayliss, Chief Services Officer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr A. Coates, Chief Executive Officer, South Australian Government Financing Authority.

Mr A. Kennedy, Director, Treasury Services, South Australian Government Financing Authority.

Ms J. White, Director, Insurance and Fleet SA, South Australian Government Financing Authority.

Ms J. Townsend, Chief Executive Officer, Funds SA.

Ms J. Holmes, Commissioner of State Taxation, RevenueSA.

Ms D. Bennett, Chief Executive, Super SA.

Mr A. Mills, Chief Executive, HomeStart Finance.

Mr B. Naylor, Chief Financial Officer, HomeStart Finance.

The CHAIR: Welcome back. The proposed payments portfolios are the South Australian Government Financing Authority, Funds SA, RevenueSA, Super SA and HomeStart. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he so wishes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, but I might introduce the change of advisers.

The CHAIR: I was going to get to that, but you might as well do it now.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Anthony Coates is the Chief Executive of the South Australian Government Financing Authority and Andrew Kennedy is the Director of Treasury Services in SAFA.

The CHAIR: Welcome. No opening statement, Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

The CHAIR: I call on members for questions.

Mr COWDREY: We will start with the omnibus questions, if that is alright.

Mr McBRIDE: The omnibus questions are:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2022 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 1 July 2022 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 1 July 2022?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 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?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2023-24 for consultants and contractors and, for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise whether it met the 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend for 2022-23 to which the government committed and, if so, how was the saving achieved?

7. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2023, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

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

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

What savings targets have been set for 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates; and

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise what share it is receiving 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 is being used in each case?

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

What was the actual FTE count at June 2023 and what is the projected actual FTE count 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?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2023-24 and for each year of the forward estimates?

13. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

14. 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 2023-24?

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

16. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 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.

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

Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2023-24;

Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 15 June 2023 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today; and

Are you expecting any reallocations across your agency's budget lines during 2023-24, if so, what would be the nature of this reallocation?

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

What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agency in 2023-24;

What percentage of total procurement spend for your agency does this represent; and

How does this compare to last year?

19. What protocols and monitoring systems has the department implemented to ensure that the productivity, efficiency and quality of service delivery is maintained while employees work from home?

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

21. How many procurements have been undertaken by the department this FY, how many have been awarded to interstate businesses, and how many of those were signed off by the chief executive?

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

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

The CHAIR: Well done, member for MacKillop. Maybe one day we will reform this system and automatically table the omnibus questions—it will save us all a lot of time. Questions?

Mr COWDREY: Do you want to deal with ESCOSA now?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure, if you like.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 144, Strategic Management Plan Advice Scheme, in regard to local councils. The government introduced a Strategic Management Plan Advice Scheme through amendments to the Local Government Act. Under that scheme the commission provides each of the state's 68 local councils, on a rotational basis, advice on the appropriateness of their long-term financial and infrastructure asset management plans. In the six months since councils have received strategic management advice from the Essential Services Commission, is the Treasurer aware if any of this advice has been adopted by any council?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take this on notice, but yes, the previous government legislated this regime. I think this is the first time ESCOSA has effectively rolled it out. I am happy to ask ESCOSA what information they can provide or whether the Office of Local Government, under Minister Brock's purview, can. I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Is the Treasurer aware of any advice provided by ESCOSA to a council which has led to the creation of efficiencies in that council, or delivered value for money to that council's ratepayers?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take it on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Still staying with ESCOSA but shifting to page 182, the purchase of plant and equipment for ESCOSA has increased from $107,000 last financial year to $612,000 this financial year, and it is now budgeted to spend $1.145 million next financial year. Can the Treasurer explain the nearly tenfold increase in ESCOSA's plant and equipment spending over two years?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: I will work through agency by agency so that you have—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can we start with SAFA?

Mr COWDREY: SAFA, yes, absolutely; that is fine. In regard to Budget Paper 3, page 89, the SAFA schools loan scheme, how many schools applied or approached SAFA for a schools loan scheme this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will check this, obviously. I am happy to come back with the precise details. I am not sure if any have in the current financial year, because I am not sure that we have released a further round, but I am happy to check that and come back to you. I can give you the totals. Up to the most recent week, there were in total—so not just for the last 12 months but in total—24 applications. Four have been withdrawn by the schools and 20 of those applications have been approved. I think the total amount disbursed to those 20 schools is $130,745,000.

Mr COWDREY: Has SAFA been approached by any more applicants but for those that have actually submitted an application? How many schools have actually reached out to SAFA to perhaps gauge interest or to get more information in regard to the scheme?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am certainly aware that there have been approaches made, generally from school sectors asking if the scheme is still going, if there is a current round open and, if not, will there be future rounds. I am also aware that specific schools have made approaches as well, but I will come back to you on the detail of that.

Mr COWDREY: If you are happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide reasons as to why the four applications were withdrawn?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am. I cannot do that now. It may be that their application did not meet the criteria, or it may be that they have withdrawn because they do not need it anymore, but I am happy to provide that detail.

Mr COWDREY: Has there been any discussion in regard to reform to the scheme, in particular for future rounds, given the cap—is it $10 million—given where we are from an infrastructure perspective and the size of school campuses now? Has there been any thought or consideration by government into potentially increasing the cap that would potentially attract further schools to become eligible or have their projects eligible for the scheme?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are certainly open-minded about how we release future rounds of the scheme. We have not made any changes or made any decisions about any changes to the scheme. I certainly had a brief conversation with the education minister. I think last year the deputy leader, the member for Morialta, asked me if we were going to maintain the program and our intention that we would and it remains that we will maintain the program. If we make any changes to it, we will advise that in due course, but we have not made any changes to date.

Mr COWDREY: When do you expect the next round of the program will be open and available?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the third round closed on 7 April 2023 and we have not decided a date or released a date for a subsequent round—round 4—yet, so I cannot give you a particular date because we have not made that decision.

Mr COWDREY: Do you expect that to be this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not this financial year—

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, next financial year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have not made a decision, so I cannot be definitive, but, yes, I would expect so. We have not formalised any of that yet.

Mr COWDREY: To be clear, it is the 2023-24 financial year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to debt management, Budget Paper 3, page 63, could SAFA provide more information for the committee in regard to the current borrowing profile?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As at the 21^st of this month, SAFA had $30 billion of long-term debt on issue in fixed and floating rate format, with maturities ranging from 20 November this year out to 24 May 2040. The current duration of SAFA's long-term debt on issue is 5.38 years. SAFA's debt on issue was to fund client loans, the Treasurer's general government sector debt, debt refinancing requirements and liquidity management. SAFA targets the maintenance of approximately $2.5 billion to $3 billion in short-term debt to manage day-to-day liquidity. SAFA continually engages with its dealer banks and investors, both domestically and globally, to ensure demand for SAFA bonds meets the state's needs and for those existing and new investors.

If it is of interest, the short-term debt profile is as follows: commercial paper as at 21 June 2023 is $2.95 billion. That compares to the position at 30 June in 2022 of $2.42 billion. For the AONIA floating rate notes, there is none on issue at the moment and there was $500 million worth on issue at 30 June 2022. So the total for short-term debt is 2.95 versus a position of 2.92 at 30 June 2022. Does that answer the question? Do you want any further detail?

Mr COWDREY: Yes. In regard to the breakdown of the long-term debt, of that $30 billion can you provide a breakdown of what is secured for longer than four years, what is secured for longer than eight years and the average interest rate for each of those horizons?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Looking back, at 30 June 2018 the long-term debt was $17.1 billion and the average debt duration was 3.82. At 30 June 2019, it was 18.8, with a duration of 4.15. At 30 June 2020, it was $20.1 billion and a debt duration of 4.62. At 30 June 2021, it was $23.8 billion and average debt duration was 5.48 years. At 30 June 2022, it was $27.8 billion and an average debt duration of 5.23. At 21 June, as I said before, it was $30 billion and an average debt duration of 5.38 years. At 30 June 2024, it is forecast to be 34.2, with an average duration of 4.99. At 30 June 2025, it is 35.1, with an average duration of 5.09. In 2026, 41.8, with an average debt duration of 4.66 years, and 30 June 2027 of 43.5 and an average debt duration of 4.81.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, so that is in terms of long-term debt; that is the amount taken and the average duration of debt. Are you able to provide us breakdowns in terms of the total number at this point in time in terms of how much of the long-term debt is due to expire within four years, how much is due to expire within eight years and how much is due to expire within 10 years and the associated interest rates with a four-year horizon, the eight-year horizon and the beyond-10-year horizon?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, we can provide that, and I will provide it on notice, because it is a lengthy and detailed table.

Mr COWDREY: I understand. Are you also able to provide us information in relation to how many of the long-term debt investments are due to expire in the next five years and the interest rate in which those investments are secured?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: On notice?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: What has been the average interest rate secured for long-term debt borrowing through SAFA over the previous 12 months?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Rates have fluctuated. In the last financial year SAFA raised $5.91 billion of cash at an average market interest rate of 4.07 per cent from a combination of fixed and floating rate debt, with maturities ranging from June 2025 to May 2040.

Mr COWDREY: Has SAFA implemented any strategies to reduce potential rate rises, or are you able to give us further information in regard to what SAFA's projections are for expected annual average interest expenses?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that SAFA does not forecast interest rates and operates as a price taker in markets when it is raising funding to meet its clients' borrowing requirements, whether that is for a specific duration or weighted-cost-of-capital guidelines to meet regulatory requirements, floating-rate funding to hedge mortgage portfolios or working capital. So I cannot be specific about what our expectations of rates are out in the market, but in terms of what the strategies are that SAFA employs, I think it would be fair to say that SAFA is not only an active participant but closely watches what is available in the market and seeks to take advantage of lower cost financing where possible.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to give the committee any breakdown in terms of where our debt burden lies in terms of markets—how much is invested here in Australia versus how much is invested overseas?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that 100 per cent of our debt is issued in domestic markets.

Mr COWDREY: It is issued in domestic markets.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: That is including the short-term liquidity—yes. Has SAFA, through the executive team or the investing team, undertaken any travel in the previous 12 months?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Can you provide the committee details of that travel?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There has certainly been interstate and overseas travel, but I am happy to take that question on notice and come back to you with the particulars on that.

Mr COWDREY: Did SAFA executives travel to visit with ratings agencies and similar investing opportunity banks, etc., this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: They did so separately to yourself?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the most recently released Moody's statement, what was their commentary, and how does SAFA react to South Australia's debt burden benchmarks?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think it is worth bearing in mind SAFA has a very specific role and objective, in this respect at least, in terms of raising debt to meet the government's requirements. It does not have a particular view on commentary made by the ratings agencies, noting that levels of indebtedness and those sorts of budget settings are responsibilities for government.

Mr COWDREY: Has SAFA undertaken any modelling in terms of potential impact of downgrading ratings on potential borrowing costs?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Generally speaking, SAFA of course monitors the different costs of debt. My recollection is that when the ratings have changed for South Australia, whether it has been the achievement of a AAA credit rating or the change from AAA down to AA+ or AA+ down to AA, the difference in the cost of debt can be a relatively small number of basis points.

I am happy to come back with further detail on notice, but I can recall from a previous response to this that a change was likely to impact somewhere in the order of six to 15 basis points on particular types of products, but we just do not have that information in particular. I think that is dwarfed by how the market moves almost on a daily basis in terms of what financiers are prepared to offer governments like South Australia in terms of cost of debt at particular points in time.

Mr COWDREY: But SAFA has contemplated that change?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: SAFA's view is that they do not sort of isolate particular events. They look at everything that could influence the cost of capital, and the advice that I am provided is that daily fluctuations in the cost of debt can often be greater than any marginal change in the cost of that that may result from a change in credit rating.

Mr COWDREY: Just very quickly, to finish with SAFA, what is the headcount, actual FTE, as we stand today?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the forecast at 30 June is 89.8, but I will check that and if it is wrong, I will correct that coming back to the committee.

Mr COWDREY: All positions are filled?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Mr COWDREY: How many vacancies exist?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We will take it on notice. I assume that like most areas of government everyone is slightly below headcount in the current labour market.

Mr COWDREY: What savings task was SAFA allocated last financial year, and what have they been allocated in the coming financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that there was a specific allocation made for SAFA. That is something that is determined at the whole of department level. The allocation made for the future year is not finalised yet. There is an additional savings task in this budget for the executive savings, and that is something that will be allocated in the lead-up to the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr COWDREY: Did SAFA achieve their savings task from last year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take it on notice and see what detail we can provide. I think SAFA has achieved its forecast budgeted outcomes as far as possible that it can control. Obviously, there are fluctuations in costs of insurance and debt financing costs and outcomes for claims and that sort of thing, but any further detail I am happy to take on notice. Who do you want next?

Mr COWDREY: Funds SA.

The CHAIR: If you could introduce your new staff, Treasurer, that would be good.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is Jo Townsend, the Chief Executive Officer of Funds SA.

Mr COWDREY: I will begin at Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 176, specifically questions in regard to the builders indemnity insurance, if I could. What is the average premium for builders under the builders indemnity insurance this financial year, and has it been finalised for next?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that on notice. That is part of the insurance fund that SAFA manage, but we do have a figure for that and I am happy to provide it for you.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to give detail in terms of the consultation that has been undertaken by SAicorp with the housing industry this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have written to representatives of the housing construction industry and asked them to participate in a consultation effort for any changes that may be desired in builders indemnity insurance. I am just trying to find that average premium for you. I think it is $1,300 or $1,400.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have previous years as well?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The average premium for builders per project is currently $1,240.45, but there is an average premium per project, depending on the size of the project. For the size of the builder, if their turnover is above $10 million, the average premium per project is $1,037.39; if their turnover is $5 million to $10 million, it is $1,902.78; if their turnover is between $2 million and $5 million, it is $1,568.14; and if it is up to $2 million turnover for a builder, then the average premium per project is $1,137. So that $1,240 is a blended overall average across all of those areas.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the letter inviting consultation that you sent out, were you inviting the building industry to respond to any particular proposed changes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess we have an open mind at this point in time. You probably recall that the thresholds for the total amounts that the insurance can pay out I think caps out at $150,000, which probably most people would think is not as contemporary as it could be, but there are a whole range of issues. We have a pretty open mind about what changes we make, but we have to bear in mind that if we make the scheme more generous that may come at a cost of higher premiums, so we will have to balance those considerations as we go through it.

Mr COWDREY: So there were no specific suggestions outlined in the letter that you—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There may have been. I do not have the letter or the outcomes in front of me, but while the revenue raised from premiums has served to cover the costs going out of the fund in more recent times, only going back two or three years it was the case that the premium revenue was not covering payments being made from insurance claims. There is obviously the base consideration of whether the operation of the scheme is sufficient to maintain enough reserves in there or solvency of the fund, what is covered—I guess some more operational issues as well where we have had builders that have struggled to be able to take on new projects because they hit their limit under the insurance.

There have been a number of occasions, I think, where builders have sought to have QBE change their arrangements so that they can take on more work and QBE in turn needing to be satisfied that they have the financial capability to be able to satisfy that work. Across that whole range, if not others, there are a range of concerns that we have about whether the scheme operates sufficiently to meet its intended purpose, and no doubt there are a whole range of concerns that the building industry has as well.

Mr COWDREY: Has there been an increase in instances of builders not taking out cover notes this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess in overall terms we do not believe there has been a significant increase in the number of building projects that have been undertaken without the necessary cover. However, I should confirm that there have been building projects that have been taken out without that cover. There has been one—I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to mention them—fairly high-profile building company collapse where there have been a number of instances of projects that were commenced by that builder without the necessary cover in place. The advice I have just received is that there has not been a significant uptick, there has just been the continuation of a small number of projects that have been commenced without the appropriate cover.

Mr COWDREY: If you have those numbers are you able to provide them for—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr COWDREY: —the previous five financial years, including this one?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. I may need to go back to—if SAFA does not have them, I may need to go back to QBE, but I am happy to make those inquiries and provide it.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to give an outline of the headcount and actual FTE for Funds SA as of today?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The forecast full complement of staff is 83.2. The actual number is significantly below that. I do not have the figure—I am happy to provide it—but it is approximately 70 staff. Again, that reflects current labour market conditions. They have not been able to fill all positions, including when the regular turnover happens from year to year.

Mr COWDREY: What savings task was Funds SA allocated this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They do not get a particular savings task, or I should say they have not had a savings task this financial year. I am further advised that the fees that Funds SA have charged to their clients, in order to manage and invest their funds, have fallen from 1 per cent to 70 basis points and that has saved those clients in the order of a couple hundred million dollars.

Mr COWDREY: What is the annual saving that was achieved this financial year for the non-filling of the near 14 FTE that Funds SA have been carrying empty?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We will take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 181, there are a couple of follow-up questions in regard to the Riverland flood ESL bills and how the decision was made to effectively, without any knowledge of those potential flood victims, have their outstanding amounts, having not paid bills, automatically rolled over to the next financial year. Who made that decision to delay FY 2022-23 ESL follow-up letters and to add the outstanding amounts to this year's ESL bills?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that some previous advice or evidence has been given to the Economic and Finance Committee on this. I am advised that an administrative decision was made by the commissioner to hold off issuing further notices, or final notices, or whatever the correct terminology is for bills that have not been paid for the 2022-23 financial year, in some recognition that those bill recipients may be in difficult circumstances.

I think the point that was raised at the Economic and Finance Committee is acknowledged that, while the intention of holding off pursuing those bills to not further extenuate any difficult financial circumstances was considered for that reason, it may have created an issue of uncertainty that you have highlighted. It is still being considered by RevenueSA as to how we manage this without imposing further either burdens or anxieties to people who have ESL liabilities.

Mr COWDREY: Has RevenueSA sought to contact the 1,500 people since we discussed this issue at EFC?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is RevenueSA has not contacted them since the Economic and Finance Committee hearing, bearing in mind that the subsequent round of bills for the 2023-24 financial year is due shortly and RevenueSA is finalising its intentions of how to communicate with those property owners or those bill recipients for that to explain their current liabilities, whether it is just for that year or whether it is for the preceding 2022-23 year, and then also what their options are in meeting their obligations.

Mr COWDREY: So you have acknowledged that there is uncertainty and have not contacted the 1,500 people who have uncertainty?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that property owners have received their bill for the 2022-23 year. For those people who have not paid their bill—that is the cohort we are talking about—as to whether they are to receive a follow-up notice, a reminder notice, to pay that, the decision was made not to do that at this point in time given the situation that many of those property owners are still experiencing in the Riverland.

The advice I receive is that, bearing in mind that the next bill cycle is about to run, RevenueSA is now working through how they are going to communicate with those people who received the 2022-23 bill, have not paid it, have that outstanding liability and then get the 2023-24 bill, how they will communicate with those property owners so that they can provide them with a straightforward understanding of what their situation is, what their liabilities are and then what their options are in meeting those obligations.

Mr COWDREY: The issue here is that the flood came through, and obviously we have ESL bills that go out from late July—I think that is the first round—or August or even later. Potentially, these people received their bills in November or December. It has been stuck on the fridge. The fridge has washed away in the flood. I am sure it certainly would not be front of mind for those people who have been affected by floods to pay that bill that may or may not still be attached to the fridge that may or may not still be in their kitchen.

Given that the quantum we are talking about is 1,500 people, should there not be some form of communication with these people to let them know that they should or should not be expecting a double-sized bill coming next year, depending on the decision of RevenueSA? Is that not something that they warrant, at least that form of communication, to ease that level of uncertainty?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand the point you are making, and it is not an unreasonable point, but the flip side is there is no point sending another bill or another communication out to that property owner so that it may or may not be attached to a fridge that may or may not be there that may or may not have been washed away. That is why RevenueSA in this instance, as far as I am advised, has tried to be a bit more flexible than it otherwise would be in dealing with these property owners.

I take your point about them wanting certainty, but I am advised the approach from RevenueSA has been motivated by not providing further sources of stress and anxiety to people who are going through an extremely difficult, once in more than 50 years, flood event. I went through the detail of how much relief from various state government taxes and levies we have currently provided. The government is trying to be accommodating for people's circumstances, whether it is a physical circumstance for their property or whether it is a financial circumstance for them. We remain open-minded to it.

We have not sought not to communicate with them to exacerbate a problem: we have sought not to communicate with them so as not to place further stresses or anxieties on them, but I take your point that may not be the way that intention has been received. If people who are directly impacted by this feel that we should have done it a better way, I am happy to take that on board, and we are happy to consider how we can treat the people who are affected in the Riverland with greater consideration and courtesy.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to RevenueSA and the HomeBuilder scheme listed in the highlights section of the budget paper in Volume 4, how many total applications were received for the HomeBuilder grant?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 14,082.

Mr COWDREY: How many applications were accepted?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 11,794.

Mr COWDREY: How many applications were processed within the time frame?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that on notice, but between the 14,082 and the 11,794, 1,196 were withdrawn or declined, and 1,092 are pending or at various stages of progress awaiting receipt of additional information from the applicants.

Mr COWDREY: Has the government communicated with any of those who were declined or withdrawn about the change in deadline?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the First Home Owner Grant that has obviously been continued, are you able to provide the underlying assumptions that lie with the allocation provided in the budget this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You mean in terms of how we have provisioned a total amount of expenditure for the $15,000 grants?

Mr COWDREY: Yes, essentially the number of applicants you are expecting to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, happy to take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: The same question as to the previous agencies: the total headcount and FTE as of today?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There are 159 FTEs budgeted and the projection is that 153 of those positions are occupied, and there are four temporary staffing arrangements.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to budget savings, what was allocated last year and what has been allocated this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take it on notice.

Mr COWDREY: We will move to Super SA.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have Dascia Bennett here, the Chief Executive of Super SA.

Mr COWDREY: It is in the reverse in some ways to start here. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 151: your budgeted FTE this year was 243; next financial year, 267.7. Are you able to outline the actual number of people within Super SA as of today and outline the reason for the significant increase in headcount?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am looking at Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 152. The budget for this year was 258.5, an estimated result of 243 and then the budget of 267.7. You are asking about the increase from 258.5 budgeted last year to the 267?

Mr COWDREY: Yes, sorry, I must have read out the wrong figure.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that there are actually 251 to be funded by Super SA and then the Department of Treasury and Finance has service level agreements with a number of its attached areas like Super SA for corporate services, which attracts a further 16.7 FTEs.

Mr COWDREY: So that service level agreement sits across all agencies?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, for example, the Office of the Under Treasurer, the Treasurer's Office, ICT services, people and performance, financial services and risk and audit.

Mr COWDREY: So just looking at Treasury—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Broadly across government.

Mr COWDREY: Yes. To continue that same standard, were you provided with savings allocations last year, and have you been provided one this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There was no savings task on Super SA because essentially their operations are self-funded. They are funded by member fees for each superannuant that has their superannuation account with Super SA.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the significant changes that have been undertaken and the reform around choice of fund, are you able to advise how many superannuants have taken up that option?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that 7 per cent of new employees to the South Australian government—so people coming into the government for the first time—are making a fund selection.

Mr COWDREY: A fund selection outside Super SA?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, outside of Super SA, that is right. That is 13 per cent less than the predictive modelling that was undertaken before the commencement of the choice of fund regime. I am advised that, of the current active Triple S membership, 1 per cent of those have made a fund selection. That would be approximately 2,000 members out of the 200,000-odd cohort who have made a fund selection.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have the raw numbers for this year in terms of those who have elected to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure I have the raw numbers, beyond the percentages, but I am happy to take that on notice and bring it back to you.

Mr COWDREY: What was the total cost of the new offering?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you mean in terms of what the member fee is or the cost of implementing it?

Mr COWDREY: The cost of implementation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will come back with a more precise and accurate answer, but I am advised that it was approximately $6 million.

Mr COWDREY: Of those 7 per cent who chose not to take up the choice of fund for Super SA, and the 1 per cent who have since left who were existing within the Triple S scheme, do you collect data from those who chose to leave the scheme, or have chosen not to take up the scheme? Was there a reason provided? Did they indicate whether they had gone to an industry fund or to a self-managed super fund?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that it is easier for Super SA to understand where the existing public servants are moving to, because we have to facilitate the move. I am advised that the majority of those are into self-managed super funds. Of the 7 per cent, we can see what information we have but I suspect that Super SA may not have that information, because it is actually the employer—for example, a department like the Department of Treasury and Finance or the Attorney-General's Department or SA Health or whatever—as the agency responsible for remunerating the employee which has to facilitate the direction of the superannuation guarantee amounts at the employer level. Anyway, I am happy to take it on notice and see what information we have.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have a breakdown in terms of average age for those who have elected to leave the Triple S scheme?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We could provide that, but I would have to take it on notice and come back to you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Treasurer, are you able to advise whether the uncapped nature of contributions continues if people move out of the state scheme as state government employees?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For example, if regular members of the Triple S scheme have a greater capacity to make salary sacrifice payments, whether they are able to do that when they move to an industry fund or—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes; basically contributing to the state scheme, Super SA, it is unlimited—you can continue to add to it—but there are limits on private sector ones.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that if you transfer over to a private sector scheme, like an industry fund or something like that, you do not retain the entitlement to make a greater salary sacrifice contribution beyond the mandated caps that apply to those regular industry or private sector funds.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to advertising that change of fund is now available for members, what actions have been taken by Super SA to ensure that all members of the Triple S scheme are aware that that is an option for them?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that all members have been notified in the form of what is called a significant event notification. Regular communications with members include information about the choice of fund, and when somebody joins the public sector they are made aware—I presume when they are filling out their employment paperwork—that there is choice of fund available for them.

Mr COWDREY: When you say a significant event notification, is that via post, is that via email? What is the form of communication?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that members are able to determine how they receive communications from Super SA, so for those who choose to receive their communications electronically, they would have got it electronically; for members who have not elected to do that, they would have got it by post.

Mr COWDREY: And that has been communicated once in that manner?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that a significant event notification is a term and a requirement imposed on superannuation schemes via commonwealth regulations, so when something—I was going to say 'significant'—momentous happens in the change of administration of a fund the fund's administrators are obliged to communicate that in a particular form according to that commonwealth regulation, and that has been completed. I am also advised that in the ongoing periodic communications that Super SA has with its members, information about choice of fund is also included in those subsequent communications.

Mr COWDREY: You undertake a survey to members reasonably frequently?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that there is an annual survey which is undertaken, but I am also advised that there are intervening periodic surveys, which can be as frequent as weekly or monthly, depending on what campaigns are being run by Super SA at the time.

Mr COWDREY: Has it been contemplated by Super SA to add a question in there as to whether fund members are aware of the choice of scheme option?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that that particular question has not been the subject of a survey since the choice of fund regime's inception, but it has formed part of the membership surveys which were conducted in the period of time preceding the choice of fund to try to gauge members' interest or willingness or propensity to participate in that sort of regime should it be available in the future.

Mr COWDREY: Is that something that Super SA would contemplate doing in the future?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it would be.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Same line, Treasurer: the Triple S Flexible Rollover income stream, and select members can check account balances, switch investment options, opt into online communications through the scheme's member portal. That service, however, is not available to PSS3 members.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is a matter of great importance.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is there a reason for that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am interested in this.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Are we expecting to see any change?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that the parliamentary superannuation schemes are still administered on a legacy platform, and have not yet transferred to the newer, more contemporary platform that the regular Public Service superannuation schemes are operated on, but it is the intention to do that over the next 12 months, and that would provide the capabilities that you mentioned before in terms of logging in and checking balances and other supports and services that are available to regular members of the public sector schemes.

Mr COWDREY: HomeStart.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have Andrew Mills, the Chief Executive, and Braden Naylor, the CFO from HomeStart, with me.

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 1, pages 6 and 7. I have both listed here, so apologies; it is one or the other just in regard to the 2 per cent home deposit loan for first-home builders. When did the new low deposit loan commence?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It has not commenced. It is currently forecast to commence on 1 July 2024, and HomeStart is undertaking work at the moment on their systems to see if they can bring that availability forward to do it earlier in the midst of a financial year rather than at the commencement of one.

Mr COWDREY: With regard to the operating initiatives in the budget associated with HomeStart, is the cost associated with the implementation of the new plan the systems upgrade?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am advised that the additional funding is a change in the CSO payments that the government is making to HomeStart in order to cover off any increase in risk from these loans.

Mr COWDREY: How many loans has HomeStart forecast that they expect to be taken out with this product?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Specifically, for the 2 per cent product, the amount of the CSO payment is based on 75 additional loans per year, but should the take-up be higher than that, then that would change their CSO payment. It may well be much higher than that, of course, because there are existing low deposit loans for this purpose, which have a higher deposit requirement, and once this becomes available we would imagine that those numbers of loans may start transitioning across to this as well.

Mr COWDREY: So the net increase in terms of people accessing HomeStart loans as a result of this you are estimating to be 75 people a year from 2024-25?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, we do not really have a basis for estimating how many people are going to take this up because it is not just the availability of a low deposit loan; it is also for the first time the abolition of stamp duty for first-home buyers on homes to be built and it is almost impossible to understand how each initiative separately is going to impact the cost of this measure but also together what that is going to mean. We have a baseline assessment in order to inform an additional contribution that the government can make for HomeStart, but we are not going to know until we are into the early months of this being rolled out what the take-up rate is like.

Mr COWDREY: Remind me: was this an election commitment that was made?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, the election commitment was made for a low deposit loan at 3 per cent. We have found that there is the capacity to make it even more attractive by offering an even lower deposit loan at 2 per cent. That is what this budget does: it takes up that opportunity.

Mr COWDREY: And that 3 per cent loan was operational soon after the election, on 1 July last year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The 3 per cent loan had existed previously for graduates, for people with certificate III vocational education qualifications and above, and HomeStart had advised that they were able to make that more attractive to graduates building their first home by changing that to 2 per cent. This effort expands this beyond people who qualify for the graduate loan—i.e. people who meet other lending criteria but may not have a certificate III or above to an additional cohort—so that is what has happened.

I guess in some respects the election commitment has been partially accessible, but only accessible by those people who have those graduate qualifications. This seeks to change it to basically all eligible first-home buyers or home builders, even those without those specific qualifications.

Mr COWDREY: Over the first 2½ years of the government, there effectively had been no change to the graduate loan whatsoever and those who were eligible to access it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, the graduate loan has been available at a 3 per cent deposit. That has been changed to a 2 per cent deposit and then this measure will see it broadened further to all eligible South Australian first-home builders, not just those with graduate qualifications that would qualify them for the graduate loan.

The CHAIR: One more question.

Mr COWDREY: How many graduate loans were written in 2021-22 versus 2022-23?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do not read anything into this, but I am advised it was an average of 666 per year.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have the raw numbers for each? That is the average.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have the current year, which is the 2022-23 financial year to April, and that was 688. I have just been advised the average across years was 666 but I will come back to you with a breakdown across financial years.

Mr COWDREY: Which financial years was that average over?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will come back to you and provide that. I am sorry, we are just struggling to find the detail.

Mr COWDREY: I will just qualify: if you can provide the—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The year-specific graduate loan—

Mr COWDREY: —year-specifics 18 and projection moving forward.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolios of South Australian Government Financing Authority, Funds SA, RevenueSA, Super SA and HomeStart completed.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms T. Pribanic, Deputy Under Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr M. Carey, Executive Director, Shared Services.

Mr S. Bayliss, Chief Services Officer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr A. Coates, Chief Executive Officer, South Australian Government Financing Authority.

Ms J. White, Director, Insurance and Fleet SA, South Australian Government Financing Authority.

Ms K. Birch, Chief Executive, CTP Regulator.

Ms J. King, Executive Director, Procurement Services SA.

Ms K. Smith, Acting Chief Executive, Lifetime Support Authority.

Mr B. Petrovic, Director, Corporate, Lifetime Support Authority.

Mr I. Nightingale, Industry Advocate.

The CHAIR: The proposed payments portfolios are CTP Regulator, SA Government Insurance and Fleet, Strategic Procurement, Industry Advocate and Shared Services, and the minister appearing is the Treasurer. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he so wishes. I call on the lead speaker to make a statement, if he so wishes. I gather you both do not want to do that—that is an assumption on my part—so I call on members for questions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have with me the Chief Services Officer of Shared Services, Scott Bayliss, and Mark Carey, the head of Shared Services, is just coming through now. I am happy to proceed if you like.

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 155. What is the government's policy regarding payment of invoices? The Shared Services website currently states that the SA government aims to pay all invoices within 30 days of being received.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is correct. Our election commitments, though, also included a commitment, as part of our procurement reforms, to change the number of days in which agencies have to make payments to 15 calendar days. That is to become effective from 1 July 2024. We have been communicating with agencies that the change is coming in and that they will need to prepare their systems and their operations to make sure that they can give effect to that, because that will mean that obviously there will need to be much greater attention paid to processing and dealing with invoices to enable Shared Services to make those payments within the 15 calendar days.

Mr COWDREY: So we are nearly 15 months into this government. We still have the expectation of 30 days at Shared Services on their website. We still have 30 days as the metric that Shared Services is being held to in terms of their delivery target. Why has it taken so long to implement these changes? Was it not a priority for the government to ensure that contractors are provided their invoices within what the government had told South Australians they were wanting to do?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a priority, but it is not something that can be instantly achieved. We process tens of millions of invoices and payments a year and there needs to be a change not only to Shared Services' operations in order to give effect to this. Shared Services has a responsibility to process payments on behalf of other government agencies and it requires a change across all of those government agencies, subject to this policy, to make sure that they have the systems capability and the processes in place so that Shared Services are in receipt of appropriately authorised invoices to be paid within 15 calendar days.

At the moment it is double that amount of time, so there is conceivably a number of weeks that agencies have to get an invoice, review it, authorise its payment, submit it to Shared Services and then have Shared Services pay it within 30 days. Contracting that by 50 per cent means that Shared Services has to have that invoice very quickly so that they can process it accordingly. The other thing you have to realise is it is not just about the payment of invoices. For those invoices that are late beyond that 15 days, they will then start attracting the regime that was introduced by the former Labor government of making interest payments on those late payments as well.

Getting that regime into place by 1 July 2024 necessitated the Department of Treasury and Finance going out and advising all the agencies during the course of calendar 2022 what the policy was going to be, consulting with them about how it was going to work from Shared Services' perspective, what they would need from those agencies and in what time frame. Cabinet also had to, along with all the other procurement reforms that have been approved, make that policy change and ensure that it applied to agencies. Now we are going through the process of Shared Services working through those agencies to make sure they have the systems and processes in place to give effect to it.

Mr COWDREY: What percentage of invoices were paid within 15 days this financial year and to what total value?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that from 1 February 2023, since that time, 92.76 per cent by volume and 81.79 per cent by value of invoices processed by public authorities were paid within 15 calendar days or less.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, from when?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: From 1 February this year, 2023, so since that point in time, 92.76 per cent by volume and 81.79 per cent by value of invoices processed by public authorities were paid within 15 calendar days to date. So some 14 or 15 months in advance of the date where it is required to come into effect, the performance is already at more than 92 per cent of invoices by volume.

Mr COWDREY: So you have confirmed that late payment interest will be added as of 1 July 2024 as well?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that is the intention. There is a legislative change which is required to give effect to that, which has not been considered by the parliament yet. We have to bring that before the parliament. The Late Payment of Government Debts (Interest) Act 2013 has to be amended to give effect to that changed time frame.

Mr COWDREY: Is the intention to still have government departments responsible paying that late payment, or is it Treasury that will be paying?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: God forbid it will be Treasury paying.

Mr COWDREY: I did not expect so.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. It is still the intention that the client agencies, in effect, would be paying that interest.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the 15 days, has there been a discussion in terms of how this breaks down? Does the authority to pay from the department or the agency need to be provided within 10 working days, and then Shared Services is left with five? I know that one of the contentions previously in regard to late interest payments is when the transfer of authority is shifted from the department to Shared Services. Is Shared Services going to be taking on any of the potential risk in terms of late payment, and will they be responsible for any depending on when authorities transfer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For context, there are three phases to this process. Invoices are received by Shared Services, they are sent out to the agencies responsible for consideration and authorisation of those payments, and then it comes back to Shared Services to be paid.

Mr COWDREY: Where there is an agency agreement.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Where there is an agency agreement?

Mr COWDREY: Some are still processed through agencies directly.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. The discussions that have been undertaken to date between Shared Services and the agencies have tried to arrive at an arrangement where the amount of time out of the 15 calendar days—not working days: calendar days—is maximised for the agencies rather than for Shared Services. That has been the focus of discussions to date.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the statistics that were provided earlier in terms of the number of payments made within 15 days and those outside of 15 days, can you please provide that statistic as a breakdown by financial year from 2018 through to when the current financial year ends?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have not been capturing that data since 2018.

Mr COWDREY: So you started capturing it as of when?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As of 1 February 2023.

Mr COWDREY: So how do you know it was not the case that 97 per cent were paid within 15 days prior to that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Obviously, we have been capturing the data for 30 days since 2018. I think we have been capturing it for 20 days on the back of, at that point in time, a national cabinet objective that state and territory governments would be able to meet that time frame. The experience, based on the 20-day and 30-day data, is that year on year it has continued to improve, but I am not able to go back retrospectively and say what it was for the 15 days because that was not a target previously.

Mr COWDREY: Are you happy to provide the 20-day data if you have it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand it is published on the Shared Services website every month.

Mr COWDREY: Is it published in a monthly fashion or by financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Monthly.

Mr COWDREY: Can you accumulate that to financial years and provide the 20-day data from 2018, if that is possible?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Taking you to page 156 of the budget papers in regard to the number of complaints to Shared Services actioned within 10 business days, the target remained the same at 100 per cent year on year, but last year the achievement was 95 per cent and this year it was 70 per cent. Are you able to provide an explanation as to why Shared Services has had such a significant drop-off in servicing complaints?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In that same table it states:

The lower 2022-23 Estimated Result reflects a small total number of complaints received from members of the public during 2022-23. Three of these complaints were complex payroll-related (from former employees) and the current process is being reviewed to ensure the complainant is contacted within 10 business days.

The other advice I have received is that it only takes a very small number of complaints, because overall we receive a very small number of complaints, to significantly skew the data and that is what has driven that particular result in the last financial year.

Mr COWDREY: So how many complaints are we talking about?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think these figures reflect three complaints, but if there is any further detail we can provide I am happy to bring it back to the committee.

Mr COWDREY: Three out of 10 or three total?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Three out of 10 that were outside.

Mr COWDREY: Can we move on to Procurement Services?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have with me Jody King, the Acting Executive Director of Procurement Services.

Mr COWDREY: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 157, the first highlight notes that 13 of the government's policy commitments in this area have been implemented. Are you able to list which 13 have been?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The ones that have been delivered is what you are seeking?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: South Australian workers must deliver a minimum 90 per cent of labour hours on major infrastructure projects worth more than $50 million; 20 per cent of all labour hours on major projects must be delivered by apprentices, trainees, Aboriginal workers and the long-term unemployed. Government projects worth more than $55,000 must use local project managers, architects, designers, engineers, surveyors, planners and other professional service providers.

The construction of public housing requires the use of South Australian manufactured products where possible. Procurement opportunities are published on the government's forward procurement plan three months in advance to enable local businesses to prepare for tender opportunities. An annual pipeline detailing construction projects above $10 million for the next three-year period is made publicly available to enable lead contractors to prepare thoroughly.

Public projects above $500 million will be broken into smaller stages or components to allow multiple South Australian businesses the opportunity to participate on projects, unless the nature of the project makes this unfeasible. Any contract worth more than $55,000 awarded to interstate or overseas suppliers must be approved by the respective chief executive.

Public authorities are required to report on contracts that are awarded to non-South Australian businesses. Public authorities are monitoring the payment of their invoices with the aim to pay contractor invoices within 15 days, as we just discussed, and an independent complaints process established for tenderers who feel they have been unreasonably missing out on government work.

They are the ones that have been approved and mandated by cabinet. Obviously, with respect to the infrastructure ones, for projects only just contracted and not yet under commencement, it is too early to assess the 90 per cent of labour hours or 20 per cent of labour hours targets, but those are the 13 policies that have been implemented to date by the government.

Mr COWDREY: How do you say that the 15-day requirement for government departments to pay contractors has been implemented when it does not start until 1July next year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Cabinet has authorised the change of that policy, which is to apply to all agencies. Obviously, there is a start date for that. In the same way, I cannot say that we have implemented that South Australian workers must deliver 90 per cent of labour hours on major infrastructure projects, because there are infrastructure projects which have been contracted but not yet commenced or are still out to tender, etc. But in terms of requiring the changes to procurement policies to being in effect for agencies, cabinet has made that decision and they are in the process now of being carried out and adhered to.

Mr COWDREY: How many procurement outcomes has your CE signed off since this new policy came to fruition?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have got the figure and I am happy to provide it, but I understand it is less than five, for example.

Mr COWDREY: When did the policy come into practice?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it was 20 February this year.

Mr COWDREY: 20 February this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Is there any minimum requirement in terms of cost?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry?

Mr COWDREY: Is there any minimum requirement in terms of cost—so all procurement outcomes that are awarded to non South Australian companies are signed off by the CE, as of 20 February 2023?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If they are worth more than $55,000.

Mr COWDREY: Where was that quantification in your election policy?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have my election policy in front of me, but that is the advice that I have just provided to the committee.

Mr COWDREY: I can assure you that qualification was not in there. In regard to tenders that have come out that were executed after that date, the Adelaide Entertainment Centre internal cladding procurement that was worth $1.7 million, awarded to a WA-based company, was that signed off by the CE?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is not something that is signed off by the Department of Treasury and Finance, but I am happy to take that on notice and see what information I can provide. As you can imagine, for those sorts of building works, projects or infrastructure projects, it is usually the purview of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport rather than for us, but I am happy to see what information I can provide.

Mr COWDREY: So the Attorney-General's Department would have signed off on the court reporting services tender worth $2.2627 million that was awarded to a Victorian-based company for court reporting services?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Quite possibly. You would have to ask the Attorney-General.

Mr COWDREY: And the Adelaide Venue Management Corporation CE, who I think reports in through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or the Department for Infrastructure and Transport?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I think the Premier is next door if you want to run down and ask him.

Mr COWDREY: That is very helpful for you, but you are assuring me that—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, it is just how we arrange government.

Mr COWDREY: You are assuring me that CEs signed off on every one of these procurements?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot provide you that assurance. I can just tell you what the policy is and what our CEs are expected to do.

Mr COWDREY: What are the repercussions for CEs if they are not signed off? What is the definition of 'must'?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will see if somebody can furnish you with a dictionary. Let me get you some advice on the repercussions. There is a requirement for chief executives to report their compliance to the Premier each year. My understanding—and I will have to check this because it is not my portfolio area—is that chief executives must report as part of their performance agreements in the terms of their employment with their successful delivery of election commitments.

Mr COWDREY: Is strategic procurement providing any sort of audit over those sign-offs?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There are reporting requirements which agencies have, and that is information that is to be provided to Procurement Services, but there are not further auditing requirements which are undertaken outside of those reporting arrangements.

Mr COWDREY: What has happened to the other election commitments that you have not listed—the target of an increase of $425 million a year in spending going to SA businesses, the setting aside of 1 per cent of government project funding to subcontractor support funds, the requirement for departmental procurement staff to undertake regular training on the industry participation policies and local industry participant providers, the—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, there are a few; I am happy—

Mr COWDREY: —commitment to hold regular industry-specific workshops conducted by the Industry Participation Advocate—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That has been delivered. They are underway. In fact I have attended one, along with Andrea Michaels. The setting aside—

Mr COWDREY: How many businesses attended?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There were nearly 300 people there. I will ask for some advice from the Industry Advocate. The setting aside of 1 per cent of government funding into a subcontractor support fund discussions are continuing between the South Australian Government Financing Authority, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and industry representatives to work out how best to deliver that. What we are aiming to achieve, obviously, is to support quicker payments to subcontractors and better compliance with obligations in the industry, but that remains in process.

In regard to the other election commitment of reviewing all government procurements by the Marshall Liberal government to identify contracts awarded to interstate or overseas companies against industry participation and government procurement policies, that work continues. We will be publishing the outcomes of that behaviour as well in addition to the information that has already come to light in that regard—some of the more questionable processes that were undertaken between 2018 and 2022.

Also, as we have discussed, requiring lead contractors delivering state government projects to pay subcontractors within 15 days, similar to our 15-day requirement, is to come into effect on 1 July 2024, so in about 12 months' time.

Mr COWDREY: So we can expect next year's budget papers to reflect payments to be made within 15 days—KPI within Shared Services?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We may publish a KPI. We will not have any data, of course, because it may not have come into effect. The other one that you mentioned was the meet-the-buyer industry forums. The event that I attended on 28 March was attended by 600 people representing 300 businesses, and there were 34 state government public authorities that had displays there as well as four lead contractors currently delivering South Australian government funded projects with exhibitions.

You also mentioned the $425 million of additional goods and services procurements to be awarded to South Australian businesses. That target has been allocated across agencies, and they are required to report against that after the conclusion of this financial year.

Mr COWDREY: In terms of how these policies are going to be communicated—the achievement or non-achievement of—is there any desire from strategic procurement to publish achievement against these policies online in any way to make it publicly available to businesses?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, there is. I am not sure we have resolved what the reporting regime will be, but from my perspective as the minister responsible for procurement policy, reporting and transparency of this for agency performance is really important in order to encourage them to comply with the policies that cabinet has imposed on them. If there is no transparency or reporting arrangement then there is less incentive for them to comply, so, yes.

Mr COWDREY: Are you planning to put your election commitments up on a government website as you promised to do I think about 15 months ago?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know why the member for Colton and Stacey Lee of the ABC think that I am the minister responsible for ALP websites.

Mr COWDREY: Well, you did promise to do it, Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I said I would go back and see what information I could find for her. I am not the state secretary. I do not occupy a leadership position of the ALP. I am a state government minister with specific responsibilities to the parliament and to the community. I am always interested to see how I can furnish information to media outlets and of course I have taken that on board, but to assume that this is my singular responsibility I am afraid is not accurate.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to procurement as well, page 157 again: there has been a number of tenders that have gone out in recent weeks in regard to services for the VAILO 500, in particular around portable toilets. It looks like, from jumping on any sort of hire website, that the average cost for that is about $60 a week to hire. Is it a standard process for a contract of such a small quantum to be put out to tender?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to ask the South Australian Motor Sport Board, which I think reports to the Premier under the DPC portfolio.

Mr COWDREY: The strategic procurement section of the Department of Treasury has no—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, we do not have a specific VAILO Adelaide 500 toilet procurement policy. Those sorts of things are usually left up to the discretion of agencies, so long as the procurement occurs within the approved public sector framework, but we have not had direct management of the procurement of portable toilets for the Adelaide 500.

Mr COWDREY: So there has been no advice in terms of minimum quantums that is provided by strategic procurement around what is required for when something needs to be sole sourced or when an open and transparent tender process needs to occur?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure of the value of that procurement, but if it is more than $55,000 you have to have three quotes. That may inform why the South Australian Motor Sport Board has gone out to tender for portable toilets.

Mr COWDREY: So anything over $55,000, did you say, requires three quotes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: An open market tender is $550,000. Three quotes are required for procurements above $55,000 to $550,000.

Mr COWDREY: So over a value of $500,000 it is compulsory that it goes out to open market tender?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is $550,000, and the general policy is that there should be an open tender above $550,000. Agencies do, though, retain a discretion that if there is some reason that necessitates going to a sole-source provider or to a more limited tender rather than an open tender above that threshold, then they retain that capacity to do so.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise why on return of freedom of information documents the contract for the provision of visual advertising screens around the VAILO Adelaide 500 was awarded without an open market tender process?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot, and I am happy to have this corrected if the advice I am about to provide is wrong, but my recollection is that as part of their sponsorship of the Adelaide 500, which I understand to have been like a normal sort of naming rights sponsorship that involved the provision of an amount of money to secure those naming rights, the company VAILO offered the Motor Sport Board to provide additional in-kind support to the event, which also included some of those video screens that were around there.

Mr COWDREY: Were those screens Australian-made, do you know?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure. VAILO is a South Australian company that manufactures in Kent Town, but I do not have that information available.

Mr COWDREY: Given your knowledge of the contract and how it was put together, are you able to advise as to whether the contract was back-ended and whether any cash component was required by the naming rights sponsor to be provided to the government in the first year of the contract?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have any knowledge of that contract, so commensurate with my lack of understanding of it, I cannot provide that advice, but my assumption is that a naming rights sponsor usually provides a cash component in order to secure that right. If that is not correct, I am happy to bring back a correction to the committee.

Mr COWDREY: Are you happy to take on notice that there was a cash component taken on the first year of the contract?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am not happy to take that on notice. These sorts of sponsorships—

Mr COWDREY: Well, that is what you just did.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, I will not provide that information to the committee, to make it clear then, if that clears it up for you. I was trying to be cooperative. These sorts of contracts are by necessity commercial-in-confidence. I can find out as much information as I can about the provision of those video screens. As I said, my understanding was that they were provided additionally by VAILO and that that might justify why there was not an open tender for it, but beyond that I am not going to go into the details of the naming rights sponsorship contract.

Mr COWDREY: Do strategic procurement review from time to time tenders that have gone out across government? Is there an audit process in regard to tender processes or decisions not to go to open market?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We do not. One of the other election commitments we made was to have the Auditor-General undertake that as a role. I raised that with the Auditor-General and he has declined to do that unless he is legislatively obliged to do that. In lieu of any sort of cooperation from the Auditor-General, the only assessment and auditing of performance is usually done by the Office of the Industry Advocate to ensure compliance with the local industry participation requirements and the procurement policies as they relate to that area.

Mr COWDREY: On the SA tenders page there seems to have been a change made within the last six or so months that the address for the successful tenderer has been removed. Does that have anything to do with the government's procurement policy?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We at this table were not aware that that change had been made and what informs it, but I will take that away and see what information I can provide.

Mr COWDREY: Are you happy to commit to returning those addresses onto that page? It makes it much easier for the public and the opposition to at least track where tenders are going.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am always happy to bend over backwards to make your life easier, so we will see why that change was made, what informed it and what we can do to ameliorate the concerns that you have.

Mr COWDREY: I might just jump to fleet, if that is okay.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have Jenny White with me and Anthony Coates, both from SAFA.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to give the committee a breakdown of the current fleet, including number of passenger vehicles, SUV vehicles, heavy vehicles, hybrid or electric vehicles—I am not sure how we are classifying that, if that is one or two categories now? Are you able to give an idea of the current composition of the fleet?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think I am. As at 31 May, there were 6,857 vehicles, of which 3,946 or 57.5 per cent qualify as low emission, including 2,100 hybrid vehicles. There are 65 vehicles in the fleet with the ability to operate as zero tailpipe emission vehicles. These are 35 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, being 24 Mitsubishi Outlanders and 11 Eclipse Cross vehicles; and 30 battery electric vehicles, being 18 Hyundai Kona, nine Hyundai Ioniq and three Kia Niro vehicles.

The main manufacturers making up the fleet are Toyota at 52 per cent, Kia at 10 per cent, Ford at 9 per cent, Subaru at 8 per cent and Mitsubishi 8 per cent. The fleet is split into the vehicle segments of passenger vehicles, 23 per cent; SUVs, 46 per cent; and light commercial vehicles, 31 per cent.

Mr COWDREY: Is the government still committed to 100 per cent EV vehicles by 2030?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand in 2019 or 2020, the previous Liberal government signed off on an EV action plan which set that target that you mentioned. We are all politicians—by definition, ambitious—and that particular target is, even to my mind, more ambitious than most. Are we going to achieve it? You cannot rule out anything in life, but on the current trajectory I am not sure that we will get there.

Mr COWDREY: How much progress have you made against that metric over the last 12 months, with 1,625 cars bought over that period?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand South Australia's Electric Vehicle Action Plan was approved by cabinet in August 2020 and publicly released in December 2020. From a capital cost perspective, the government gets very little to zero discount over retail price on electric vehicles, whereas a vehicle manufacturer may offer over a 10 per cent discount on non-electric vehicles.

I am advised that from a retail perspective, a Hyundai Kona Elite electric model is $54,500 and $60,500 in its extended range option, compared to the entry level petrol model Kona at $26,900. The differential increases when the government discount is taken into account. Many battery electric vehicles are cost prohibitive, so they are above a price threshold that the fleet would normally pay for other fleet vehicles, but of course as technology improves and volume efficiencies are achieved it is expected price parity will occur sometime in the future.

We have maintained the stunning run rate achieved under the previous government of 1.3 per cent penetration of the fleet with these electric vehicles. That may increase as electric vehicles come into lower priced thresholds of the market and become operationally more deployable for even broader areas of government. I think making up the other 98.7 per cent of the performance we would need to get to 100 per cent in seven years would exceed even my extraordinary ambitions in this area.

Mr COWDREY: So you have made no change to the extraordinary net run rate, as you have put it, since declaring a climate emergency?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that is correct. It was an ambitious goal by the previous government and it was a target of the previous government. I am confident that increasing the proportion of the 6,800 vehicles we have in the South Australian fleet will entirely mitigate the global climate emergency. Hence, while I share the member for Colton's ambition to increase the penetration of a fleet of battery electric vehicles, I just cannot in all good conscience say that we are going to put a halt to climate change and get to 100 per cent battery electric vehicle penetration of the fleet by 2030.

The CHAIR: On that note—

Mr COWDREY: What changes have Treasury made since declaring a climate emergency to achieve those targets?

The CHAIR: On that note—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to go on all day about this.

The CHAIR: Okay, last question then.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There have been a number of changes in the fleet. New models have come onto the market. We have added new vehicles onto the market, including lower cost vehicles. We have also tried to transition the gaudy faux Bentley-looking sedans out of the parliamentary and ministerial fleet for something a little bit more in keeping with the government's expectations of the fleet, and we will continue to make further changes to the fleet in the future.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolios of CTP Regulator, SA Government Insurance and Fleet, Strategic Procurement, Industry Advocate and Shared Services completed. The examination of proposed payments for the Department of Treasury and Finance are now complete. The examination of proposed payments for the Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance is adjourned until 4.15.

I would like to thank the Treasurer and the member for Colton for the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. I especially want to thank the public servants, all those involved in what is obviously a very daunting task of putting a budget together and then having to prepare for estimates, so a big thank you.

Sitting suspended from 13:15 to 14:15.