Department for Infrastructure and Transport, $1,167,341,000

Administered Items for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, $7,946,000

Membership:

Mr Pederick substituted for Hon. V.A. Tarzia.

Minister:

Hon. J.K. Szakacs, Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans Affairs.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Whelan, Chief Executive, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Ms A. Hart, Director, Office of Local Government, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Mr L. Pineda, Manager, Budget and Reporting, People and Corporate Services, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

The CHAIR: The portfolio is the Office of Local Government, the Outback Communities Authority and the Local Government Grants Commission. The minister appearing is the Minister for Local Government. 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 make an opening statement, if he so wishes, followed by the opposition.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Can I start by apologising to you for the lack of scones. I note your excitement in the last inquiry about that, so my sincerest apologies to you for any offence caused. I thank and acknowledge my advisers today: Mr Jon Whelan, Chief Executive, Department for Infrastructure and Transport; Alex Hart, Director, Office of Local Government; and Luis Pineda, Manager, Budget and Reporting, People and Corporate Services.

In my very brief opening remarks, I thank the staff of the Office of Local Government—all of the staff and, more broadly, those supported by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport—for their work and dedication across the last 12 months.

I also take the opportunity to recognise, across a bit more than three-quarters of the period under examination, the dedication and service of the member for Stuart, Geoff Brock—a good man, a great servant of his community and someone that I know I speak on behalf of many in sending both our appreciation and our thanks to for his dedication to his local community for many years.

Mr TELFER: As a brief opening statement, obviously, in this aspect of the budget, I will be dwelling on pages 133 and 134 of Agency Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3. There is not a breadth of pages to be covered with local government, but there is a breadth of subject matters and a lot of important matters that affect the whole of South Australia. Can I just acknowledge the sector as a whole, which is always striving to be more efficient and more effective at serving its ratepayers. The interaction between state and local government levels is really important and thus this examination is going to be especially important.

Minister, I will start by looking at page 133 and unpacking a little bit about the FTE numbers in particular. Can the minister explain the drop in the employee benefit expenses?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise that the variance in 2022-23 employee benefit expenses to 2023-24 employee benefit expenses directly relates to the change in notation in budget papers of the OCA. I draw the member's attention to the final line in the program summary table, that the FTE from 2022-23 to 2023-24 has changed from 18.9 to 11.5 and note that eight FTE have been taken out for OCA and two for the Local Government Grants Commission.

With respect to the employee benefits, 1.193 in 2023-24, I will seek some further advice from Ms Hart, because I understand there are some insurance impacts that have affected that. I am advised by Mr Pineda that the variance in 2023-24 is directly apportioned to an actuarial re-evaluation of employee benefits relating to understanding workers compensation and long service leave.

Mr TELFER: You referred to the movement of the FTE from OCA and the grants commission. Whereabouts in the budget have they moved to?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that they are not reflected in the table contained on page 133 but are rather contained in the OCA statement.

Mr TELFER: So for the Local Government Grants Commission FTE, is that the same? Where are they encapsulated?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise that the two FTEs for the Local Government Grants Commission are with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport reporting.

Mr TELFER: Very good. Can you clarify if there has been a service cut with the decrease in the net cost of providing services? Or a shifting?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No. I can advise that there has been no reduction in the total FTE, nor has there been a material reduction in the wages and on-costs portion of the employee benefit expenses. So, in a very black-and-white way no, there has been no reduction in services, nor has there been any reduction in budget in relation to the provision of those services.

Mr TELFER: As the minister responsible, obviously, for the Local Government Act, which provides for the strategic management advice scheme currently conducted by ESCOSA, and as the minister receiving advice from the Office of Local Government, are you satisfied or comfortable with the scale and scope of the review process developed by ESCOSA?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I think that is a question that I can best respond to by saying that I am continuing to work across and receive the advice so that this scheme in discharge of the legislation can operate effectively, can operate to the benefit of all parties. In my view, there has been an endeavour since the legislative change in 2021 from previous ministers, and in fact former governments—I think Minister Chapman was minister at the time—to work collaboratively across the sector in pursuing the effect of this section of the act.

I am satisfied to a degree that the scheme is operating consistent with the legislative framework; however, I remain open to where the scheme can be nuanced and improved so that both ESCOSA and the Local Government Association, and most importantly local constituent councils, can receive the maximum benefit from the scheme.

Mr TELFER: Minister, have you or the office been involved with any direction around the development of the scope and scale of the ESCOSA process?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No. I have been minister for 8½ weeks—

Mr TELFER: Or your office.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, I will take advice on that, but I can certainly answer in the first instance regarding my involvement: no, I have not directed ESCOSA, and I would both preface and bookend that comment by noting that there is very limited capacity for ministerial intervention with ESCOSA, even for the responsible minister, the Treasurer. Perhaps I will take a moment to confer with the director of the Office of Local Government on the second part of the question regarding the office's engagement.

I am advised by Ms Hart that, consistent with both the legislation which sets up the scheme and the operation of the scheme as an independent scheme and then importantly with respect to the statutory autonomy of ESCOSA, there has not been and nor can there be direction from the Office of Local Government with respect to the operation of the scheme, but I am advised and have seen and am satisfied with the strong engagement that the Office of Local Government has had with this scheme—with ESCOSA, with the Local Government Association and with constituent councils—for many years now.

As I said, since 2021 and prior to 2021 in the development of both the legislation as well as the nuance of particular clauses within the amending legislation, the Office of Local Government have been and remain and will remain very engaged with all parties involved in this.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister. In regard to that scheme, obviously it is established under the Local Government Act, but subsequent to that legislation ESCOSA have used their powers under the Essential Services Commission Act to increase the scope of the SMP scheme to review additional matters. In reviewing the 2021 House of Assembly debate on the relevant amendments, which was a constructive debate around the local government reforms across party lines, it was foreshadowed by the minister at the time that the expectation of the cost of the scheme would be around $20,000.

With the subsequent use of the powers of ESCOSA to review additional matters, as you well know the cost has gone to $40,000 per council. I am trying to get an insight: has there been any involvement from the office with advice to ESCOSA about the need to increase the scope of the scheme and review those additional matters?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will answer that in a few parts and take some specific advice with respect to the engagement—and I think it is safe to say historic across the last two or three years—with the Office of Local Government and ESCOSA with respect to scope. I note the member's preamble to his question relating to some of the comments made in maybe a committee stage, second reading stage or third reading stage of debate by the Hon. Vickie Chapman. I have a lot of time and respect for the former minister, but trying to understand what she has meant or said at various times in my career has not been prudent and successful, so I am not going to start now. I should also say, nor do I have available to me the Hansard to which the member refers.

In terms of the scheme itself, I will take specific advice from the director with respect to the historic engagement, in those early days, around the previous minister's remarks around the $20,000—if that was specifically in relation to what the member was asking.

Again, I just note that I am endeavouring to answer the member's question, but it is with respect to years that are not subject to the examination, years that I was not minister and years we were not in government. It may be that the $20,000 figure the member refers to was in the back and forth and the changes in scope of what the proposed legislation would do in terms of the rolling schedule for the examination.

I am advised that initially there were discussions or proposals to have the scheme and the advice provided to councils every year. That then moved to a proposal of every three years, and it has ultimately, with the input of the independent Essential Services Commission, landed at four years. That would be the extent to which I am able to provide any illumination on the initial comments of the minister back in 2021.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister. In regard to this process, you referred to a statement around benefits for all parties. Is the minister aware of any efficiences in the local government sector that have resulted from the provision of this advice from ESCOSA?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can certainly respond to that question, and note that very recently—which I was very pleased to see—I was advised that the LGA submission into the federal enquiry into local government sustainability actually referred to the advice that has been received, and the recommendations that have been furnished as a result of the ESCOSA advice scheme. This was in their submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport. I would be happy, at a later time today, if the member had some interest, to provide some additional detail on the state government's submission as well.

The LGA, in its submission, notes that ESCOSA's advice has confirmed the existing concerns of councils, and it has confirmed the advice of the independent ESCOSA with respect to sustainability. This is really important, because the view of this government is that the Financial Assistance Grants scheme and the total portion of funding provided by the commonwealth is insufficient, and it is insufficient to meet the sustainability needs of councils.

In the first instance, I note that the provision of that advice to the members of the LGA has enabled them to provide what is, in my view, a very strong piece of advocacy on behalf of their members. Councils that have received advice that they have risks are certainly taking action, and I am advised by the Office for Local Government, in their engagement, that this is occurring as a result of the recommendations provided to councils by ESCOSA.

There have been various public comments—I can perhaps take it on notice or I can find it in my pieces of information today—that have been made by the City of Whyalla and I think the City of Onkaparinga with respect to the advice and, particularly, the constructive engagement that they have then undertaken with their community and their ratepayers arising from the advice from ESCOSA. There is also, in my direct engagement with the Mid Murray Council, in their mind strong work being undertaken and action being undertaken by their council, led by their chamber, with respect to the advice that has been received by them in their first tranche of advice that they have received from ESCOSA.

These are matters that are taken every year as part of councils' business plans, the ESCOSA advice that is provided through the rolling four-year period to councils is, as I have noted and as members know, provided once every four years, but the annual business plans are actions that are taken every year annually by councils, and the work that I see and the work that we see being undertaken by councils immediately responding to ESCOSA advice occurs after their advice, but will and should continue across forward years in the creation and implementation of their business plans.

Mr TELFER: Minister, are you aware whether this advice that has been delivered to councils is on any issues that they were not already aware of, being that ESCOSA are basically bringing together publicly available data and information and presenting it back to councils? You spoke about a few of these councils using it as an advocacy tool. Are there any issues that you have heard that a council has been made aware of that they were not already aware of?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There are certainly matters, and I am not in an informed position to be able to give the member an indication from a portion perspective or otherwise of the total advice received or the recommendations received. Whether 10 per cent, five per cent or 100 per cent of matters being raised are already on the radar of councils, the question is a good one and I think it should be on the agenda of councils. The reality is that there have been a number of councils that have received recommendations from ESCOSA, particularly with respect to asset renewal, asset management plans and prioritisation of infrastructure matters, that have not been on their radar or their agenda or, as the member puts it, known.

Certainly in my ongoing engagement with the sector and councils and ESCOSA, it is my endeavour where there are efficiencies or opportunities for there to be a nuancing of the scheme and efficiencies gained in the scheme, particularly in those elementary matters, for lack of a better way of putting it, to provide efficiencies in ongoing years. That is a focus of mine and certainly, I understand, a focus of the sector and, I am pleased to be able to say, a focus of my engagement with ESCOSA as well. But the fact remains that there are at large a number of recommendations that have been made to a number of councils that have not been, as the member puts it, on the radar or known to them.

Mr TELFER: Is there any action from the state government to assist councils who have been shown to be unsustainable or potentially unsustainable in the two years of ESCOSA reporting so far? We know that there are, off the top of my head, 11 councils I believe that have been designated by ESCOSA as unsustainable or potentially unsustainable. What is the government doing with regard to any additional supports for those local government areas?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I did refer earlier on to the position taken by the Local Government Association—and this is simply one part of my answer to the member's question—with respect to the federal inquiry into the financial sustainability of councils. I think it is important to put on the record that part of the response of the state government. Particularly with respect to the advocacy of the state government, it must and should be to recognise publicly and without fear or favour that the current system, the current scheme, the current federal apportionment, of budget is insufficient.

There has been engagement that I have had with councils, particularly those regional councils, the smaller councils and all those that have been in receipt of smaller amounts through FA, who have been very clear in their view about the unsustainability of the current scheme. Part of the submissions and the recommendations of the state government with respect to the financial assistance grants is not just that the total pool must increase but that there should be a position taken by the federal government that there is a no worse-off position. It is my view that councils should have a reasonable expectation that the existing financial assistance grants framework continue as a base, but I recognise—and I earlier mentioned the Mid Murray Council as just simply one example—the insufficiency and inadequacy of those total grants for those councils.

There is also an opportunity through this inquiry to advocate for a change in the roads funding. It is appropriate for Mr Whelan to be here today, but we have seen, time and time again, that there are smaller regional councils that do carry, in my view, a disproportionate load with respect to roads and infrastructure funding compared to their metropolitan counterparts. I saw this firsthand, and the member for Chaffey saw it firsthand, during the River Murray flooding event, where there was an enormous impact on the road network of these councils, notwithstanding the support of the state government. Much of the road network that was disrupted and much of the road network that was in part destroyed was local road network.

It is that asset renewal base, that infrastructure spending, that does lead to, in part, the recommendations that are received by the councils that have been subject, so far, to the advice from ESCOSA about sustainability. It is about recognising, where there are questions and recommendations made by ESCOSA with respect to the sustainability of a number of these councils that the member has referred to, that there are big, flashing red lights with respect to infrastructure and assets.

I know that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is well aware of this and across this, but it would be insincere of me to not be very clear and deliberate in my view that there is an embedded insufficiency of funding across the councils that have formed the large part of the unsustainability or questionable sustainability identified by ESCOSA.

Mr TELFER: Minister, on that tangent you have gone down, I know there has been some commentary about $5 million being invested into creating new programs to improve mental health services. The reason I bring it up with you is that it talked about the continued funding of the Public Health Partnership Agreement between the LGA and Preventive Health SA. Does the minister know where in the budget that is, though? We have seen the announcement.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is not an administered item or in ours. I am sorry, I am not sure if the health minister has been up yet or not but it would be one that we would be happy to—

Mr TELFER: I know that the local government sector and the LGA are just uncertain as to that.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is a very sincere question by the member and we have spoken, and with the member for Chaffey as well, outside of this place about that key issue regarding mental health impacts of disaster and recovery into their communities. I will endeavour to find out if there is any information that I can provide the member as well, just noting that it is outside of my portfolio.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate that. Continuing on, I want to turn my mind to some of the other highlights and targets. The 2023-24 target was to undertake a review of the 2022 local government periodic elections and consider legislative reforms to improve participation in local government and local government elections. The 2024-25 target talks about progressing the review of the 2022 local government periodic elections.

In relation to those targets for 2024-25, when will the minister announce the state government's findings in relation to the recent review of community engagement and the state government's response to the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the 2022 local government periodic elections? We know that time frames had been pushed out a bit. The latest one is still on the YourSAy website as 'to be delivered in May 2024'. We are now nearly into July 2024. I just want a bit of an insight, minister, into what is going on with that process.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There are a few moving parts on that one. With respect to the progress of the participation review, I can acknowledge that the summary of the YourSAy public consultation is published and that forms the first part of the re-engagement on this matter.

The significant part of the member's question, which is the periodic review into the 2022 local government elections, of course is a matter for the Electoral Commissioner. When he provides me and the government with his review has been a matter for him but, without speaking for the Electoral Commissioner, he has informed me personally that his periodic review is imminent. That of course then enables the government, once having received that review, to consider all matters.

I think it would be a fool's approach to consider one without the other. I do not think it was ever the endeavour or the proposal to consider one without the other, but acknowledging that for a number of factors to which I am sure the Electoral Commissioner may have referred in his evidence to estimates—notwithstanding in large part some of the litigation that is occurring—that has been delayed.

The good news is that I am expecting that he will be completing his report imminently. That will then enable the government to receive it and consider it. I do not think there is a statutory requirement for the periodic review to be laid before the house, but I can commit today that that will be done, as it has been by previous ministers as well.

Mr TELFER: I am certainly not one to try to muddy the waters. There is a differentiation between the process that the Office of Local Government put through and, obviously, the Electoral Commissioner's fulsome process. I am trying to get an insight into what actions are going to come from the process that has been undertaken by the Office of Local Government and when we will see steps actually coming from that.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As I said, in the last couple of days I believe the YourSAy public consultation has been published. I am considering that feedback as a report to me. I will then, subject to consideration by cabinet and with further significant consultation with the sector, consider the Electoral Commissioner's periodic review and any potential recommendations contained therein, as well as the substantive matters that were put in the participation review and have been subject to public consultation since that time. The reality is that it is one piece of potential legislative reform—it is not that we are endeavouring to bring multiple bits and pieces.

It is highly likely that there will be, subject to cabinet, proposals that we put to the parliament, which will be considered by cabinet in the usual manner of course. For me—and the member has acknowledged this—the receipt of recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner is important. I am pleased to be able to inform him that I am advised that they are just around the corner.

Mr TELFER: In reference to the process the office has gone through, is the minister satisfied with the results? Are the number of engagements sufficient to give any sort of guidance: 92 submissions from the whole state, 406 completed YourSAy surveys? In reality, what this looks like as far as engagement with ratepayers, elected members and councils around the state, is it worth the paper it is written on?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will answer the first part of the member's question, which is probably a more sincere question, as opposed to 'the value of the paper it is written on'.

Mr TELFER: We have waited with bated breath for this—the timelines are extended to give people extra time. The numbers, for me, are pretty disappointing at that level of engagement. Maybe it reflects the public interest in the intricacies of some of these processes. At the time, I was one who was questioning the reasoning behind doing it in this way, and I worry that the numbers that have come from it really do nullify the value and the weight of that process.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member is right to draw attention to any degree of public consultation that has occurred, whether through this process or any process across any matter of government agency or department. I think he is also correct—I am not sure if he put it explicitly—implicitly about the challenge of engaging the community on this matter, and maybe would be open to reflecting that it is broadly reflective of the engagement in local government that I know the former minister was most keen to explore, which is the genesis of this participation review in the first place.

With 33 or 34 per cent of the community voting in local government elections—of course it is higher in the regions—it is not surprising, in my view, that there has been the number of individuals giving feedback or completions of the YourSAy survey. In part to the member's question, I might invite Ms Hart to provide some advice with respect to the historic procedural engagement that was undertaken by OLG with respect to the public consultation and YourSAy.

Ms HART: I am sure the member will recall that in December 2023 the material was placed onto YourSAy. There were various efforts at the time through social media and other channels to draw people's attention to that material. We also worked closely with the Local Government Association to hold online sessions that all council members and staff could participate in to talk to us more generally about the ideas and proposals that were included in the discussion paper, and to encourage submissions to be made by councils.

I would note that the survey that was placed onto YourSAy was not short. We asked many questions in great detail and were, in fact, quite impressed with the level of detail and thoughtfulness that the respondents to that survey put in.

Mr TELFER: Those who stuck it out.

Ms HART: Those who stuck it out, but they certainly did, which I think reflected the interest that the respondents had in the subject material they were engaging with. All of that material is now on YourSAy, as the minister has alluded to. I think, in reading through those comments, you will note that obviously the people who did respond—and I think there were a reasonable number of them—have a good engagement with it, and have given us very thoughtful material for the minister to consider as to what may or may not proceed from there.

Mr TELFER: I have reviewed some of that material, too, and know the character types that get involved in these sort of processes. Minister, you spoke about the hopefully imminent presentation from the Electoral Commissioner of his review. It is certainly over a year and half since the elections, and we are closing in on two years. Are you confident that the 2022 local government periodic elections process can be appropriately reviewed, the engagement appropriately reviewed, and then consideration given for legislation which could be prepared and then put through parliament to leave enough time for the Electoral Commissioner and the 68 councils to prepare for the 2026 local government elections?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: These are all matters of worthy consideration, but not one where I can crystal ball an answer for the member. It is really important to note, as has been the subject of much inquiry by the member, the former minister in the parliament, and one that I am just necessarily needing to note again now, that the Electoral Commissioner is an independent statutory officer not subject to my direction as minister nor the Special Minister of State.

What I can say, though, is that one of the first things that I did after being sworn into this portfolio was to meet with Mr Sherry. I really appreciate his time and all the efforts that he undertakes in the execution of our elections in South Australia. It certainly has been a very busy couple of years for the Electoral Commission, with by-elections, the state election, council elections and the Voice election. These are matters which are reasonably and understandably impacting the resourcing and timeliness of matters which the Electoral Commissioner would ordinarily undertake.

I know that it was the former minister's endeavour to receive the report of the Electoral Commissioner as soon as practicable. It is my endeavour as well, but they are matters that are quite simply out of my hands and out of the former minister's hands as well.

Mr TELFER: Are you satisfied with those timelines? Are you satisfied that we are coming to June 2024 and the Electoral Commissioner's review of the 2022 local government elections are not already in your hands?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am entirely satisfied with the matters put to me by the Electoral Commissioner, particularly as to the likely completion of that review.

Mr TELFER: You spoke about one of the early things you did as minister was meeting with the Electoral Commissioner. Did you get an insight into what caused—as was announced in December 2023 by the commission—the mistake in the Electoral Commission process which resulted in the incorrect calculation of votes in 25 local government elections, including the Adelaide Plains Council, which actually altered the outcome of the election?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, it is a good question. I certainly did receive a quite detailed briefing and explanation from the Electoral Commissioner. I understand also that he, in examination yesterday, had the opportunity in his own voice to explain some of the internal technical matters that impacted that.

I know that he expressed to me his regret about the outcome and that I also expressed to him my appreciation of what I understand was a far from optimal outcome; however, the full consideration of efforts that were made subsequent to that by the Electoral Commissioner have been worthy of expressing my appreciation. Certainly, it was a technical matter that he briefed me on, but I would not go through that in my detail now for potential systemic detail issues.

Mr TELFER: So, minister, you were satisfied with the show of regret as a fulsome response to what I believe is a terrible outcome for democracy, especially for the people of the Adelaide Plains who are now in this uncertain circumstance with two members who were not elected continuing on now even nine months after those findings were brought to light?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member is open to provide his own subjective commentary on that and I have given my response.

Mr TELFER: There is a lot in these papers, so I do not want to dwell too long on that, but I think it is probably the most important issue facing local government at the moment and one which I am glad the minister is putting his attention to and I would encourage him to put even more attention into.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: On that, though, I note that those matters are subject to court proceedings, and I certainly would be careful to not seek—and I say this with the greatest respect, as I know that the member does as well—with matters that we illuminate or respond to in here, be it improperly or inadvertently—

Mr TELFER: Yes, not at all.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: —to make comment with respect to a matter that is currently being litigated.

Mr TELFER: Minister, in the targets for 2024-25, on page 133, there is a line 'Develop a State-Local Government Economic Partnership Accord to grow economic opportunities across the state'. Who is tasked with the development of that economic accord? Is it your office? Is it DPC? Will you be involved directly in that development?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question. It is a collaborative approach. It is being developed and engaged across government. OLG is heavily involved, as is DPC.

Mr TELFER: Is OLG the lead agency?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, but that is not to say that they are solely responsible for the engagement on this. I think it is very important to note that this is an important strategic matter that was pursued by government in previous years, and I suspect was subject to examination before estimates in previous years. But I can certainly confirm that that will be finalised late this year and is one that I know is welcomed by the government and by the sector and one that I am sure will provide for a significant framework and body of work going forward.

Mr TELFER: On page 134, there is 'Explanation of significant movements' around jetty funding. To what extent is the Minister for Local Government or the Office of Local Government involved in decision-making in relation to the SA Jetties Renewal Program?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member on advice that the Office of Local Government does not have a material involvement in the advice around that. It is simply an accounting matter that has been moved through and is now within the office for roads and marine.

Mr TELFER: Sorry? As far as designation of allocation potential between council-leased jetties and state government jetties, is there still a delineation or is that purely now up to the decision-making capacity of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport or the CEO?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can certainly say that it is not a matter within my office's responsibilities, so it may be a matter to be raised with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.

Mr TELFER: Very good. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 133. One of the highlights listed is:

Worked with the new administration of the District Council of Coober Pedy to address the Council's financial sustainability and the future delivery of essential services in the township.

I know this one might be of interest to you, Mr Chair. The target is to continue to work with the administration of the District Council of Coober Pedy to resolve the council's financial sustainability and the future delivery of essential services in the township. Can the minister provide the detailed outlay for the last financial year on this highlight? What budget outlay does the minister expect in 2024-25 to continue to help the Coober Pedy council return to a position of financial sustainability?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question. Perhaps he asked this one for the Chair.

Mr TELFER: It is one which is of great interest to many across the state.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I do take the opportunity to note the strong advocacy and engagement the member for Giles and Chair has had on this. It is a two-part question. The first is the DC activity across 2023-24 and then the budget measures with respect to 2024-25. I can advise that across 2023-24, from a budget perspective, the state government allocated $150,000 to support the work of the three administrators, but there is a significant amount of work that has been undertaken within the office and from the Office for Local Government, as well as the administrators, as well as the interim and acting chief executives of council.

Fundamentally—and I think this is important to note—the government has a very strong view that there should be a return to an elected council in Coober Pedy as soon as possible. That is something that I have expressed personally to both administrators and to council, but also to a very large number of members of the Coober Pedy community, great advocates for their community, who were recently in Adelaide and were hosted by the Governor at an engagement and then hosted by the member for Giles and myself in Parliament House.

I can note directly in response to the activities requested for information from the member for 2023-24 that in February 2023 an interim administrator was appointed for a six-week period to focus his attention on the state of the council's finances. He then produced a frank report about the remaining problems and the effort that is needed to address them. It was clear that these issues needed serious attention, so three administrators were then appointed, as a decision by the former minister: a principal administrator and two supporting administrators.

The decision to appoint a small group rather than a single administrator was made to ensure that the challenges of addressing these issues would not be borne by a single person and that the Coober Pedy community could be confident that decisions are being made by a small group of highly experienced local government practitioners.

I can advise that for the first time the council has a long-term financial plan that provides a pathway to a sustainable future. This is now being implemented through budget decisions that are both tough and at the same time absolutely necessary to address years, if not decades, of council mismanagement, significant rate and water charges, and service delivery inefficiencies. That is why, with respect to the second part of the member's question, there is an announcement of an allocation of $250,000 in this year's state budget to undertake a service review and to complete an asset management plan, to ensure that the council does understand the bookends of its service delivery and its asset management plan.

The service review, the $250,000 in this year's state budget for years 2024-25, will identify all the municipal services and functions currently provided by the council, including the identification of assets and staff resources used in the provision of these services and functions, and provide detailed costings of each service or function.

It will include a comparison of both expenditure and service standards across all council functions with other small regional South Australian councils. It will identify any opportunities for the alternative delivery of council services and functions. It will identify all options for the provision of services within the council's revenue, which may include reductions in the range of existing municipal services and functions and/or revenue increases to ensure the council's ongoing sustainability across the 10-year period.

I can advise the member further that this will be overseen by the Coober Pedy Taskforce, which is chaired by the deputy chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet with additional representatives from the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, the Department for Environment and Water and the Department for Energy and Mining and with support from my Office of Local Government.

Mr TELFER: Is it a goal of your office or of you as minister to have the democratic rights of the ratepayers of Coober Pedy returned to them to put their council representatives in for the scheduled 2026 council elections?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, it is.

Mr TELFER: I commend that goal. Talking about the grants commission for the couple of minutes I have left, has the grants commission completed any determinations under their responsibilities as the Local Government Boundaries Commission in the 2023-24 financial year? Have any been advanced? What work has been done?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that they have completed their inquiry into the proposed boundary changes in Tickera.

Mr TELFER: Was that this financial year or last?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, it was 2023-24. I know Tickera very well. My godparents retired up there. It is a very unique town. I understand that inquiry was completed in 2023-24.

Mr TELFER: So that is the only one? Have any other works been advanced? I am interested in this process, obviously, because it has been a few years since the boundaries commission's expanded responsibilities have been in place, and Tickera is the only one that can be pointed to as one that has reached completion, I think, throughout the whole history.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take advice as to those instituted, but also specifically in relation to this question. There has been a further completion of a matter—I am unable to advise which year it was completed—in the Hallett Cove area. But I think it is important to note that there has been a significant body of work undertaken by the commission. Since its commencement in January 2019 there have been 15 proposals. Of these there are four proposals that are still under consideration or currently under consideration and a further nine that did not proceed as they either did not meet the statutory requirements or were withdrawn by the proponent. As I advised, there have been two that have been completed.

Of the four current proposals, for the member's interest with respect to the work of the commission, there is the significant council-initiated proposal from the Town of Gawler, which is currently under investigation. This is a proposal which includes changes of council boundaries within The Barossa Council, the Light Regional Council and the City of Playford. I can also advise that it is expected that another significant proposal initiated by the Campbelltown City Council will commence shortly, following the appointment of an investigator. Further, the commission is also currently considering a joint-council-initiated proposal from the City of Burnside and the Adelaide Hills Council and a publicly initiated proposal from Seacliff Developments Pty Ltd in relation to boundaries between the City of Holdfast Bay and the City of Marion.

Mr TELFER: I would love to talk about local government all day, but I will ask the member for Chaffey to perhaps do the omnibus, and that can bridge over while there is a change of staff to the next session.

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 2023 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 2023 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 2023?

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 2023, 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 2024-25 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 or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2024, and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

7. 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?

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

What savings targets have been set for 2024-25 and each year of the forward estimates;

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

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

What was the actual FTE count at June 2024 and what is the projected actual FTE account for the end of each year of the forward estimates;

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

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

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2024-25 and for each year of the forward estimates?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2024-25 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

12. 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 2024-25?

13. 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 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27 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.

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

Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2024-25?

Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 6 June 2024 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today?

Are you expecting any reallocations across your agencies' budget lines during 2024-25; if so, what is the nature of the reallocation?

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

What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agencies in 2024-25?

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

How does this compare to last year?

17. 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?

18. 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?

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

20. 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?

21. 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: The time allotted having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of the Office of Local Government, Outback Communities Authority and Local Government Grants Commission completed. The examination of the proposed payments for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and Administered Items for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport are now complete. I thank everyone for their contribution, especially the public servants who work so hard to prepare for these sessions.