Department for Trade and Investment, $118,542,000

Administered Items for the Department for Trade and Investment, $1,375,000

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

Membership:

Mr Telfer substituted for Mrs Hurn.

Minister:

Hon. N.D. Champion, Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Planning.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr C. Menz, Chief Executive, Renewal SA.

Mr T. Perry, Executive Director, Property and Major Projects, Renewal SA.

Mr M. Wood, Executive Director, Commercial and Business Services, Renewal SA.

Ms R. Ager, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Renewal SA.

Mr S. Wingard, Residential Project Delivery and Assets, Renewal SA.

The CHAIR: Welcome. The portfolio is Renewal SA. The minister appearing is the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination and that the Administered Items line for the Department of Treasury and Finance is now open. I call on the minister to introduce his advisers and, if he so wishes, to make an opening statement.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would like to begin by introducing the departmental officers from Renewal SA. To my left is Chris Menz, Chief Executive, Renewal SA. To his left is Michael Wood, Executive Director, Commercial and Business Services, Renewal SA. To my right is Todd Perry, Executive Director, Property and Major Projects, Renewal SA. Behind me, I have Shane Wingard, Residential Project Delivery and Assets, Renewal SA, and Rose Ager, Director, Office of the Chief Executive. I will make a short opening statement.

It is absolutely no secret that there is a housing crisis across the country, particularly here in South Australia, and that is being felt in the city, the suburbs and the regions. The Urban Renewal Authority, trading as Renewal SA, has for many years built up expertise in delivering residential, industrial and commercial projects, which they have done in partnership with the development sector. Housing is an absolutely key focus for this government and for Renewal SA in particular and we want to play a significant role in developing opportunities where there is need.

To that extent, Renewal SA has had a role in the state's biggest single land release announced in February and followed up in April, which has unlocked 25,600 allotments. Renewal SA has played a key role in delivering new land supply in Onkaparinga, Onkaparinga Heights (which was formerly known as Hackham), Dry Creek, Noarlunga Downs and Aldinga and affordable housing projects at Playford Alive, Noarlunga Downs, in two apartment buildings in Bowden and in two apartment buildings in Prospect. Those projects I just talked about in Playford Alive, Noarlunga, Bowden and Prospect are the first identified tranche of projects that we will submit to the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which we hope passes the Senate.

Recently, the commonwealth supplied South Australia with $135.8 million through their $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator program and work is currently being undertaken to determine how that money will be spent.

In May this year, the government announced Renewal SA's first urban renewal project in the city, acquiring the Franklin Street bus station site, which will deliver a mixture of housing options: 392 apartments, of which 35 per cent (137 apartments) will be affordable housing; the city's build-to-rent project, delivering 196 market and affordable apartments, which will include some community housing options for the sector to participate in; a 200-plus-room hotel; a carbon neutral operating civic building; and a mixture of retail and commercial space that will be known as Tapangka, which in the Kaurna language means 'an experience of journey'. The Governor seeks to partner with builders to deliver that city-changing project and we think it is vital to increasing the population of the CBD. We anticipate that project starting in early 2026.

In terms of the Office for Regional Housing, housing has always been a key economic driver, and if you cannot house workers you cannot attract them to the regions. That is particularly magnified in country South Australia, where there is obvious market failure. The Office for Regional Housing was announced in February this year and is charged with tackling the chronic housing shortages in regional South Australia.

The first major initiative of this office is the development of a Regional Key Worker Housing Scheme, which will construct in the first instance 30 new houses across five regions: the Copper Coast, the South-East, Port Augusta, Ceduna and the Riverland. This will assist key government workers such as teachers, healthcare workers and police to be housed in appropriate accommodation. The Office for Regional Housing will also support stakeholders such as local councils, community housing providers, businesses and local developers through supplying advice and, where appropriate, funding to assist new at-scale housing.

Renewal SA has also worked with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to manage recent land swap agreements between the state and commonwealth government, which is all focused on delivering the required growth in the defence sector at Osborne and unlocking land for mixed-use developments for Renewal SA. That arrangement will deliver key defence outcomes for the commonwealth and will also allow a growth in housing in key parts of Adelaide.

The other thing we are doing in defence is the Deeper Maintenance and Modification Facility. That is located at Penfield, right next to RAAF Base Edinburgh, a major maintenance and modification facility for the P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft and the E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft. More than two dozen staff have already commenced maintenance facilities through the development of an interim facility at RAAF Base Edinburgh, but we expect 450 full-time construction personnel to be building the new facility and 160 aerospace jobs to be created after that is operational in mid-2025. Renewal SA last week closed an expression of interest process for that development.

Since the last estimates, the state government has refocused Renewal SA by appointing a new board chair, with the highly capable Stephen Hains at the helm, along with new board members including Anne Moroney, who has extensive regional experience with the Barossa RDA. I have charged the board with refocusing the organisation to concentrate on affordable housing projects and, for the first time, also to concentrate their housing efforts outside of metropolitan Adelaide.

We believe that is the right balance at this time. There is a housing crisis, an emerging housing emergency. I think most people in the community are alarmed at the situation we find ourselves in with housing, and Renewal SA is obviously a key organisation for helping the government to implement its election commitments and to go further to help alleviate the crisis. With that, I welcome questions.

The CHAIR: The member for Flinders, an opening statement?

Mr TELFER: No, not today, Mr Chair, thank you. I will go straight into questions. Can I just say thank you to the team for being here, obviously to go through what is a significant subject matter. To get a bit of an insight for me and for the public on the first part of your opening statement around the land supply and probably the time that it will take to get houses built from land releases, of the land releases in the greater metropolitan area which the government has announced—you went through a list: Concordia, Golden Grove, Dry Creek, Noarlunga Downs, I have 'Hackham' but you used the fancier term of 'Onkaparinga Heights'—I think that is what it was—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is right; the Surveyor-General is going through the process of—

The CHAIR: Can I just have a reference to the budget lines here?

Mr TELFER: Sorry. Budget Paper 1: Budget Overview, pages 6 and 7, housing package—and Aldinga and Sellicks Beach. Which ones will Renewal SA be engaged with, for instance, through a request for a proposal out of those land releases that you mentioned?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will go through it project by project, if you like. With Hackham, we own a portion of the land and the portion is under contract or options with a private developer where a code amendment was undertaken, so obviously some of that can be dealt with in planning. We own the portion at the later stages of the development, so the development starts at the top.

There is going to be an initial 200 allotments, which is basically coming off existing infrastructure that exists, because there is a neighbouring subdivision that has already been built. Over the next two to three years, that land will be—it is still subject to a land division, which we can talk about in planning, and then Renewal's land is at the later stages of the project. It has been renamed Onkaparinga Heights as part of a suburb name change, which has been undertaken by the Surveyor-General, again under application from the property developer.

With Dry Creek, there is a total of 832 hectares and we own the majority portion of that land, but that is at the moment subject to master planning and investigations with the private company that owns the other portion of it. That is a more complex proposal just by the nature of the fact that it is a salt pan. There are a range of investigations that have to be undertaken there.

Mr TELFER: Because of that complex nature will there be a request for proposal process with that, to try to work out exactly what Renewal is aiming to do with that before—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think we are going to do all the master planning and infrastructure and investigations. There is a range of significant work that has to be done before you get to the stage of whether we would directly deliver or whether we would go out to the market, but that decision has not been made yet. With Aldinga, that was released in May 2023. A request for proposal closed on 22 June 2023, and that is more than 800 allotments over 45 hectares. Noarlunga Downs, 22.5 hectares, which is approximately 600 homes, that is proposed to be direct delivery by Renewal SA in partnership with SAHA.

Mr TELFER: Aldinga, the process with that, is that a request for proposal process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that has closed.

Mr TELFER: It has just closed.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. It just closed on 22 June. Anything else?

Mr TELFER: Concordia.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Concordia, we do not own any land. That is an entirely private development under the Concordia Land Trust and that will be—

Mr TELFER: No involvement for Renewal?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Not for Renewal, but for planning.

Mr TELFER: Did you mention Golden Grove?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, Golden Grove is a private development as well.

Mr TELFER: While I was talking, you mentioned Noarlunga Downs, did you?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. Noarlunga Downs is the most recent project that we announced. There is some land held by government entities basically over the road from Colonnades Shopping Centre and the football club down there. It is right next to public transport facilities. It is ideal for housing, and so we have announced that. Renewal will be delivering that with SAHA, and our aim is to deliver 600 homes.

Mr TELFER: Sellicks Beach did you mention?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Sellicks Beach, again, is private, so we do not have a landholding there.

Mr TELFER: The request for proposal process: obviously, each allotment is different—different sizes, different complications—what is the minimum time that a request for proposal takes to be assessed for such large allotments?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It depends if it is done in one or two stages, and it can range from six months to nine months.

Mr TELFER: There are delays that can well happen to projects through a lot of these processes. Is there an insight into the impact on the costs of the projects? Has the work been done on the cost of delays for projects and thus, obviously, the affordability at the other end? It is a pretty dynamic space we are working in at the moment. Has that calculation been made for the different projects?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I guess it does actually depend on the nature of the site. Some sites are easier to deliver than others. Sometimes we will do direct delivery. Sometimes we will go out for a request for proposal. Once you have those proposals, once they have been accepted, Renewal rarely changes them. We hold the parties to account for delivery. We often require a security to deliver in a certain range of time frames. They are held to a certain set of standards and Renewal do that.

Mr TELFER: Can I unpack a little bit more about the Aldinga project? You talked about that getting to a point of completion. Did that go through a full request for proposal process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, Renewal consulted with the Department for Transport about removing the rail corridor down there. Once that was completed, we had a full RFP, which was released in May 2023 and closed on 22 June 2023.

Mr TELFER: Open for a month?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Open for six weeks.

Mr TELFER: I was under the understanding that because of the changes that happened—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Sensible changes that happened.

Mr TELFER: The changes that happened. I will let time be the judgement of the changes.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Indeed.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, the preferred proponent at Bowden was confirmed to provide the best outcome and there has been an at-length costly review. Do you think there is a risk that any private developer would have little confidence now in submitting a development proposal to the government?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Are you asking about Bowden or are you asking about Aldinga?

Mr TELFER: In general, with the complications with both of those projects, is the confidence and capacity of the private development sector to engage with these processes of government undermined?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The short answer to your question is no, there has been no effect. I am informed by Mr Menz that there is strong interest in Aldinga. With Bowden, the government implemented its election commitment and we did so in a way that did not interrupt the time frames of the development with MAB down on the Gasworks site. The review was not expensive in the great context of government. It provided great assurance to everybody that this was a good deal.

If you go down to Bowden today, you can see that they are already getting on with the work. There has been no slippage with the schedule at Bowden. That work is continuing. A contract was put in place in the same time line that it would have always done. The review was done separately by Mr Reynolds' department to provide, if you like, some probity safeguards, and Bowden is going on at the same schedule it would have always done.

Aldinga was delayed, but it was delayed for good reason. The preservation of a transport corridor to the southern suburbs is just common sense. It is common sense now, it will be common sense in 20 years, and it will be really common sense in 40 years.

Mr TELFER: That is an interesting description. What is the relevant planning authority for the seven sites that we have gone through? Are they subject to local government processes or state government processes?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Do you want me to go through them—

Mr TELFER: Yes, one by one.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Onkaparinga Heights was subject to a code amendment which was privately initiated, so that just went through the planning process of a code amendment. Renewal were involved because they were a landholder and because Renewal helped to put in place, and provided some advice about, the infrastructure deeds. They negotiated with some other landholders in the area as well. There was good interaction between Renewal and PLUS during that process. That is why we were able to put in place interim infrastructure deeds, which allowed that development to go ahead on what is a fairly complex piece of land.

Mr TELFER: Are you working your way through the sites?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, I was just wanting to see if you were satisfied with that answer. With Dry Creek, it will be the normal planning process as well. As I said before, it will be a code amendment process when it comes, but there are a number of complexities including environmental, infrastructure—not just infrastructure, there is some existing infrastructure there such as gas pipes, electricity.

Mr TELFER: It will certainly be a complex project.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is right. I do not want to underestimate the challenges there, but it is a great opportunity for the state. Renewal has been leading the government negotiations with the private proponent but planning is some way off.

Aldinga is already zoned appropriately so there is no issue there. Noarlunga Downs is already zoned as well. For all those other projects that we have in place—Playford Alive, Prospect, two Bowdens—there are no planning issues there. They are all zoned appropriately.

Mr TELFER: Can you run through when you expect the first house to be built at each of the seven sites I was asking about? What are the forecast time frames for first house completion that you are working within?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We think Hackham will be in 2025. We expect the beginnings of civil works and construction on that first little section to go ahead in 2025.

Mr TELFER: The end of 2025, or the start of 2025?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would rather give you years than quarters. The reason for that, you would understand, is that there is already great pressure on our building industry anyway, so I think it is important to be somewhat realistic about these things. We think 2025 for Aldinga as well, and 2024 for Noarlunga Downs, because we are direct delivering and we think we can get cracking down there in the first section of it.

For Dry Creek, I am hesitant to speculate on that. As I said before, it is a complex site. We are working with the Buckland Dry Creek company to begin the investigations and the master planning. Because of the complexities, I am hesitant to speculate about when a first house might appear because there is just a whole range of work there. The reason why it is important to identify Dry Creek, and this will come up in planning later on, is that basically what the government has done is pump a decade and a half to two decades' worth of land supply into the pipeline.

Mr TELFER: So you think Dry Creek would be more like a decade out?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is more of a medium-term opportunity.

Mr TELFER: Can you give some insight into Concordia, Golden Grove, Sellick's Beach? I know that it is private.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We can handle that in Planning in the next set of estimates, if you like, because they are all related to code amendments. I am happy to give you time lines on all of those. It is not a matter for Renewal.

Mr TELFER: Could we have a bit more insight then into the Dry Creek project and its complications? Has the government received any advice from the EPA around the suitability of the Dry Creek site being appropriate for residential development?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Renewal is leading the negotiations and then beneath that they are having consultation with each of the government departments: Environment, Infrastructure, the EPA, and Planning. We acknowledge it is a complex site and it is going to be a challenge to bring it to market. We think Renewal is the best agency to negotiate with the Buckland Dry Creek company about that. That is the way we are going about things at the moment.

Mr TELFER: Have you had any indication from the EPA at this point of any concerns around the suitability of the site for residential developments?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is more about the resolution of the salt mining issue. At the moment it is a salt mine that stretches right across the coastline, right up to Middle Beach where the pumps are and so, clearly, that will need remediation: the removal of salt and those sorts of issues. Renewal is consulting with government departments and the Buckland Dry Creek company about that. That is a process that has to be undertaken. It has to be undertaken carefully but, ultimately, once those remediation issues are dealt with then it is just like all the other remediation issues we deal with. That is what Renewal is set up to do: remediate land and bring it to market.

Mr TELFER: Do you have a time frame for when you would expect the EPA to have given their fulsome advice on what they believe the issues are, potentially over and above what you highlight with the salt mine characteristics in particular?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As part of the master planning process, they are involved all the way along. I forget the exact name of it, but it is basically a voluntary remediation agreement with the EPA. We currently have one with Bowden, for instance. Those obligations have now been transferred over to MAB and you can see them doing the work down at the Gasworks. It would essentially be the same process. As part of the master planning process, you identify all the steps you have to take to remediate the land so that you can then convert it into residential. There will also be a code amendment across the top of that to rezone the land.

Mr TELFER: But we do not have time frames on that? Are you reticent to lock those in because of the complex nature?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is right. I think we would want to get a master plan in place. The master plan would give you accurate time frames.

Mr TELFER: You spoke a bit about the Buckland Dry Creek company. Is the government intending to purchase the recently shelved land development owned by that company?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: What recently shelved—

Mr TELFER: Is the government intending to purchase that component—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of the land?

Mr TELFER: Yes. You talked about working with them. At some point, will the government take on the full responsibility of what they see as a high priority for the medium term?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: At the moment, we are having discussions with them about the master planning, infrastructure deeds and code amendment. There have not been any discussions about Renewal purchasing any more land on that site.

Mr TELFER: Is Renewal SA the main leader in government negotiation with that company?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is right. There is a single point of negotiation, with Renewal then negotiating with all the government departments basically to assess the government's requirements. Obviously, the EPA is an authority, so it has its own charter and is separate to this process except to provide us advice on remediation.

Mr TELFER: Can I move to Budget Paper 3: Budget Statement, page 75. I am interested in Renewal SA really becoming a player in the development space, which is obviously what has been happening. Has Renewal SA made any recent purchases of land to facilitate the developments that are happening within Greater Adelaide?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Renewal's landholdings have always been significant. We have significant landholdings over and above what we have talked about here, particularly in the northern suburbs.

Mr TELFER: I am interested in recent purchases.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In new ones, yes. The most recent one is, of course, the Franklin Street bus depot. We are in negotiations with Adelaide City Council as the preferred proponent to acquire.

Mr TELFER: Have there been any others in the last 16 months?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We bought some minor parcels at Port Pirie.

Mr TELFER: Can the government rule out Renewal SA putting in overmarket bids for land or sites that are for sale in the general market? Is there a risk that, if Renewal SA were to become a bigger player in the potential land development market, it could distort the market because of overinvolvement?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Renewal has a policy that we get valuations of land. The agency understands what land is worth before we purchase it. Renewal will not distort property markets, as you point out. What Renewal is here to do is be an urban renewal agency. There are some significant powers in the Urban Renewal Act. They were put in by this parliament. We are now in the middle of a housing crisis. The government has a housing policy, and we are implementing that policy, but it all has a foundation in appropriate valuation of land.

Mr TELFER: So you get a valuation, which obviously is a range. Is it Renewal's not necessarily a policy but process to normally be at that top end of that valuation range when looking at potential purchases?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am not going to speculate out into the future, but of course we try to negotiate good deals on behalf of the taxpayers of South Australia.

Mr TELFER: Do you think there is a risk that Renewal SA has access to information that would not readily be available to developers in the private space that would potentially put them at an advantage?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: What type of information?

Mr TELFER: This is what I am asking. Do you believe there is information that Renewal SA would have access to in ascertaining both area and price for potential land purchases?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The answer is no.

Mr TELFER: Is the government involved in the old West End Brewery site at Thebarton?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The nature of your questions invites a range of hypotheticals and speculation, which I am not going to indulge in.

Mr TELFER: It is realistic within a sphere that the government is working in at the moment, minister.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The most recent purchase was obviously Franklin Street, which we are in negotiations with Adelaide City Council about. I think that was entirely appropriate at every level. I do not understand the line of your questioning, I do not think it is valid and I am not going to speculate about any parcel of land across Adelaide—it is foolish to do so.

Mr TELFER: To ask if Renewal SA is involved in what is a pretty significant parcel of land, the old West End Brewery site, on the edge of the CBD that—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said, I am not going to engage in speculation about these matters.

Mr TELFER: Okay, we will see how that develops then. I want to talk about land supply for community housing providers. The reference is Budget Paper 1: Budget Overview, pages 6 and 7, which I referred to before, and Budget Paper 3: Budget Statement, Renewal SA, table 5.8, page 75. The Treasurer has said publicly that Renewal SA is looking for sites for community housing providers. What stage is that process at?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: All four of those projects—the two Prospects and the two Bowdens—are projects we identified that we would attempt to fund out of HAFF. HAFF is stuck in the Senate. I do not want to make political points, but if people are concerned about housing supply we have identified four projects that that fund is critical to funding and there would be a lot more.

The government regards the passage of the HAFF through the Senate—and I cannot quite believe it is being held up in the middle of a housing emergency, where we want to act. We would have got to that a lot quicker. Once we know that funding arrangement is in place and know what it is, you can then go out to CHPs, and in Adelaide the HAFF model needs Renewal to be involved in many instances; it will not be all instances. The HAFF, superannuation funds and these models will rely on coordination via government.

We have identified those sites. We will go out for an expression of interest later this year for CHPs, but I cannot stress enough that the key uncertainty in that at the moment is the Housing Affordability Fund. If there is one thing I would say to those opposite, 'Get on the phone to your senators and ask them to pass it.' Any action on housing is better than debate in the Senate.

Mr TELFER: That EOI process you talk about, is that purely for those four sites that you just highlighted?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The process will involve SAHA and CHPs as well, so it is possible that CHPs will come to us with their projects, and we would obviously assess those and participate if it leads to a better outcome for the public and more affordable rental in the marketplace. What we are trying to do here is create a category that does not exist at the moment. We have public housing and private rental, and we are trying to create an affordable rental category through community housing providers, Renewal SA, the HAFF and other forms of finance—superannuation funds and the like.

Mr TELFER: Is the government actively looking at the moment for other sites beyond the four you have mentioned?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have our own landholdings, which we are obviously assessing for suitability. Beyond this, and also, there would be CHPs out there with their own landholdings and their ideas about projects that might want our participation, and we would assess them in a sober way to get a good outcome.

Mr TELFER: But the progression of all these projects is reliant on the HAFF being advanced?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is right, yes. We are reliant on the HAFF to provide funding for these four projects but also a massive pipeline of projects of affordable rental. These will be mixed projects and will have affordable rental in it, they will have normal rental, they might have BTR in it. There might be high-market housing in some of them.

A good example of that is that we use Nightingale, which provides very cheap housing to very vulnerable people and very affordable rental to very vulnerable people, at the same time as providing market rental in very green buildings, very well made green buildings. There are a number of providers out there, and Nightingale is just one. There are a number of providers of affordable rentals but what they all need is a funding mechanism that allows them to construct housing, which is what the HAFF is there for.

Mr TELFER: How much state funding has been allocated to the four projects that you have referred to at this point?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of the total budget of 474, we have about $140 million in there for seven priority projects.

Mr TELFER: For seven priority projects?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TELFER: That is more than the four; what are the remaining three?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have regional housing, Franklin Street, and a range of other ones.

Mr TELFER: I am interested in why this function has been provided to you as minister rather than the minister who is responsible for social housing. Is there a reason for that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is a difference between—there is public housing, and we have a minister who is in charge of the South Australian Housing Authority and public housing, and that is a category. One of the difficulties, as I said before, is that in both regional housing and in the city for affordable housing, essentially what we have had to do, since I became minister—and I do not want to make it partisan but there was pretty much a blank sheet of paper and not much interest in land supply and affordable rental, and this problem has been building for a decade and governments have not responded appropriately.

What we attempted to do in the regions is create the Office for Regional Housing and we are attempting to find models that can overcome what everybody knows is extreme market failure. In some of these country towns, you have massive demand and a zero rental vacancy rate, but if you built a house there you would immediately lose money, so no private investor will ever do it. We have to overcome that and the only entity that can overcome that is government.

In the city now, we effectively have no affordable renting category, which used to be provided many decades ago by the South Australian Housing Authority—the South Australian Housing Trust. My mum and dad lived in government housing on Salway Street—I cannot remember the exact street—in Elizabeth Park as a first house.

That world is gone, and nothing replaced it, so we are trying to create a category of affordable rental, which is government partnering with CHPs, attempting to get finance from superannuation and other finance areas and most critically the HAFF. The HAFF is so important because it unleashes and enables those models, which we are all trying to put together. It is also in our charter and our act, as the Chief Executive just reminded me.

Mr TELFER: Perhaps, I will go to the Office for Regional Housing, as a neat little segue, minister. As a reference, I will point to Budget Paper 5: Budget Measures Statement, page 8, Office for Regional Housing. Can you refresh in my mind the list of regional localities that the Office for Regional Housing is actively engaged?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It was 30 homes in the Copper Coast, Riverland, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Ceduna. We have most recently been to Kangaroo Island and, of course, the Office for Regional Housing has also been working with many of the country councils, such as the Upper Spencer Gulf and the South-East more generally, including Naracoorte and the like.

Mr Hunt, who is the Director of the Office for Regional Housing, has been engaging with a lot of councils because there are two elements to it: there are those 30 homes, which are the beginning of a government employee sort of housing program and then there is basically talking to councils about landholdings, private developers, businesses and the like. All people have an interest in having more housing supply in a town or a regional city, but they do not have all the answers themselves and can partner up to deliver something.

Mr TELFER: I asked in previous months and you were not certain but is the 30-home breakdown going to be an equal distribution between the different localities or—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I can give you a target, if you like. In Ceduna, we have six; in Port Augusta, we have four; in the Copper Coast, we have 10; in the Riverland, we have four; and in Mount Gambier, we have six. That is a target for the first 30.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, it is a first step.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Is this model envisioned to expand and be replicated either further in those existing centres or in other target centres?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will start with a general observation: anywhere now that we have government employees, we have that requirement. I think about 700 or so government houses are currently on the books that exist from a previous point of time when we owned buildings in varying states of age for people to live in. That stopped and we went to a sort of private market model and that model is not working anymore because there is a zero-vacancy rate in many of these places.

So it is just in government's interest, if we want to be able to house police, teachers, doctors, child protection workers and those people with some degree of certainty, to use this program. This program is a beginning, and we are trying to work out: how do you do it? How do you deliver it? Where can we do it? You cannot click your fingers and produce a house. You have to identify the land, then you have to get a builder—there are a whole range of steps before that property appears. What we are trying to develop is a method for doing it and a pipeline for doing it.

What I think will emerge is that it is actually more efficient for government to do that for its employees, and it leads to better outcomes, happier employees with a more stable home for the period when they are working in a particular region. So the long and short of it is—

Mr TELFER: Probably.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think almost certainly we will be looking for future opportunities right across regional South Australia.

Mr TELFER: In Budget Paper 1, page 36 referred to the headline number of $3½ million over five years for the dedicated regional housing office. In regard to that $3½ million over a five-year period, can the minister advise how many FTEs this resource allocation will cover as well as other major expenditures?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is five FTEs plus all the general overheads—the normal costs that you get.

Mr TELFER: Over the five-year period referenced in the budget, will the Office for Regional Housing have a housing construction target and, if so, is there an insight into the geographical distribution of those planned residential dwellings?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The 30 is the target at the moment. So delivery of that, creation of—

Mr TELFER: So it is purely around that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, delivery of that, creation of the model, I guess. We want to create a model.

Mr TELFER: There are the two parts you talk about: the 30, but it is the overall development within regional South Australia. Is there any target wrapped around that aspect?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: At the moment we are doing what is known in the department as a needs analysis, which is basically going out and assessing what each town or regional city might need. There is a pretty big difference between some of the towns. If you are on the coast, there is an Airbnb dynamic that plays into rental markets, but if you are in other towns it is a different dynamic. What we are attempting to do there is just work out what each town needs and what each town's capacity is for land.

One observation I would make is that Renewal does not have any land in its land bank for regional towns. Typically, what we have found, at least in the first instance that I have looked at, is it is other government entities that have land and the council. Sometimes there are zoning issues, native veg issues. There is a complexity around that. Then there is the issue of: can you get local employers engaged as well?

Mr TELFER: There is no specific target wrapped up in that aspect of it?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No.

Mr TELFER: You spoke about how in some regional towns houses cannot currently be sold for more than the actual production price—the cost of the development. In these circumstances can the minister advise the additional resourcing, complementary funding programs or supportive policy settings the government will make available to the Office for Regional Housing to improve the financial viability of regional housing projects, or is this part of your needs analysis work?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There are three ways of overcoming it: a Community Service Obligation (CSO), where you work out what the gap is, and you fill it with a CSO. There is the possibility that the HAFF will resolve some of it or other commonwealth funding. The other one is just to hold it on our balance sheet and get a high rental return, and then it would be an asset that yields over time, and it is not a problem.

Mr TELFER: The access to essential services and the associated establishment costs are often prohibitive barriers as well to housing development in regional South Australia. Is there an insight into how the Office for Regional Housing will work to try to overcome this aspect in particular? I am thinking of augmentation costs for water, for electricity, for wastewater. These are obviously aspects which need significant involvement for a development to happen.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. That is part Renewal, but it is also part of the new infrastructure unit within Planning. Augmentation, range of civil costs—

Mr TELFER: So whose key responsibility will it be of those two?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The infrastructure unit is going to identify a lot of this work along our growth fronts, and I think that has been a missing piece of the puzzle previously, but obviously Renewal has a great interest in that because we are a significant landholder and, in the Office for Regional Housing's case, we have to deliver housing. They have to know what infrastructure is there for various areas of land because either you have to pick pieces of land that already have those services to them or you have to put in place that infrastructure.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. It might be a pertinent time, Chair, with your indulgence, for the omnibus questions to be read by my colleague.

The CHAIR: One day we will get rid of this and it will just be automatically tabled.

Mr WHETSTONE: 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: Thank you, member for Chaffey. The time allotted having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of Renewal SA completed. The examination of proposed payments for the Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance is now complete. I thank Renewal SA staff for their work through the year and for their work leading up to estimates. Thank you, and I thank the opposition and minister for their contributions today, and the long-suffering backbenchers from the Labor side.