Estimates Vote

Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $173,822,000

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, $4,769,000

Minister:

Hon. C.M. Scriven, Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries.

Departmental Advisers:

Prof. M. Doroudi, Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr W. Kent, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Ms A. Barclay, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Ms M. Spencer, Chief of Staff, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr B. Bartel, Director, Emergency Management, Drought and Resilience, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr N. Secomb, Director, Plants and Invasive Species, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee B. I respectfully acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of this country throughout Australia, and their connection to land and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders both past and present.

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

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

Mr BASHAM: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answer to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2025.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution.

The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament's website.

I now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if she so wishes, and to introduce her advisers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to introduce members of the department who are with me today. On my left is Professor Mehdi Doroudi, PSM, and on my right is Will Kent, Chief Financial Officer. Behind me is Ann Barclay, Director of the Office of the Chief Executive, and Meagan Spencer, my Chief of Staff. Also here today is Mr Nick Secomb, Director, Plant and Invasive Species, and Mr Brett Bartel, Director, Emergency Management, Drought and Resilience. I will provide a short opening statement before welcoming any questions.

South Australia's primary industries and regions are the heart of our economy, our communities and our way of life. From our world-class food and wine producers to our innovative agribusinesses, we continue to witness resilience and leadership, even in the most challenging of times. The past year, I think it is fair to say, has been especially tough. Drought conditions have taken a heavy toll across much of our state, with some regions recording their lowest rainfall on record. In direct response, our government committed over $73 million in comprehensive drought support.

This drought package was shaped by what we heard directly from farmers and from industry during drought round tables and ongoing consultations. It is truly a whole-of-government effort to support our impacted farmers and the small businesses and communities who are also affected, with a number of agencies leading the delivery of support measures.

PIRSA is delivering $18 million for on-farm drought infrastructure grants, $6 million to assist charities with freight costs for delivering donated fodder for livestock, $3.1 million for pest management to ease populations of rabbit, deer and kangaroos, and a further $4½ million to support producers implementing eID. Supporting the health of individuals and the social fabric of our regional communities has also been a key priority, with PIRSA also delivering programs to support mental health and wellbeing, including counselling and regional community events that bring people together.

Significant work has been undertaken by PIRSA and other government agencies involved in the initiatives to roll these out, while also ensuring that the funding reaches those most in need. We are continuing to very actively monitor the conditions and engage with industry, stakeholders and communities to identify emerging impacts and issues. The past year has seen an extreme range of conditions as, in the midst of delivering a large-scale response to drought, PIRSA has also been assisting the SES with response to the floodwaters in the Far North-East of our state near Innamincka.

Another significant challenge this year has been the detection of tomato brown rugose fruit virus, or the tomato virus as it sometimes referred to, in the Northern Adelaide Plains—the first time this exotic disease has ever been confirmed in Australia. As part of the response, SARDI mobilised to deliver a significant achievement in the opening of South Australia's first tomato virus testing laboratory based at SARDI's Molecular Diagnostic Centre at the Waite Campus. The facility began testing in November 2024 and is a significant initiative, given it boosts national testing capability alongside labs that exist in Victoria and NSW. It provides vital certification for our tomato, capsicum and chilli growers to access interstate markets, and a market access dashboard keeps industry informed on testing times.

Abalone viral ganglioneuritis, also known as AVG, also continues to cause concern in South-East waters. PIRSA has closed the take of all abalone from the Murray Mouth to the Victorian border, which has been a necessary step to ensure the stocks can recover for future generations to enjoy.

A major biosecurity milestone in the past year has been reached in the $27.4 million project to rebuild 1,600 kilometres of the South Australian dog fence, which protects South Australia's livestock industry from wild dog attacks. I am pleased to advise that 1,000 kilometres of the fence have so far been rebuilt.

Our new Biosecurity Act 2024, delivered in February this year as a key election commitment of this government, stands as a testament to our commitment to protecting our primary industries environment and communities. This future-ready act will ensure South Australia's biosecurity system remains effective, contemporary and adaptable. PIRSA has started development of the regulations for the act, and we look forward to engaging with interested stakeholders in the months to come to get these details right.

Despite the challenges faced in the past year, the professionalism and innovation of our primary industries has again shone through. The 2023-24 Primary Industries Scorecard revealed that while overall sector revenue fell by 8 per cent, the economic contribution of primary production to the state's GSP actually grew by 6 per cent to $7.89 billion. Growth was recorded across several sectors. Horticulture rose by 15 per cent, seafood by 4 per cent, forestry by 7 per cent and dairy by 1 per cent.

Our food and wine industries also saw a slight overall increase, and restored access to the Chinese market was a highlight, with exports to China soaring by 174 per cent. At the same time, our producers continue to embrace innovation and adapt to changing consumer expectations. SARDI continues to be a highly valued strategic partner for industry and research institutes, delivering research programs that directly support the productivity and sustainability of our primary industries.

Of course, global pressures remain, from market volatility to the broader impacts of climate change and many more. That is why our government continues to stand with our regions, advocating strongly for our industries, supporting innovation and providing the assistance needed to build resilience for the future. Together, through partnership, persistence and innovation, we will continue to seek to turn challenges into opportunities and ensure that South Australia's primary industries and regions not only recover but thrive.

Mr TELFER: Nothing else for me to say after that one. I might have to quickly get on to questions.

The CHAIR: Not a problem. Go for it.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister and staff. I will start on Budget Paper 3, page 23, looking at overall financials and trying to unpack a little bit about some of the detail. There is a line there for PIRSA in the operating expenses. The 2024-25 budget was $258 million and the estimated result from 2024-25 was $338 million, an increase of $80 million. Can you give me an explanation as to why?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the annual investing program 2024-25 estimated result of $10.66 million is $1.873 million lower than the original budget of $12.533 million, largely due to delays in the commonwealth-funded Building Resilience to Manage Fruit Fly package, with $4.438 million related to the Medfly SIT facility now expected in 2025-26 and 2026-27. This is offset in part by commonwealth funding in 2025-26 for HPAI (bird flu) preparedness and response purchases, including specialist equipment to boost our HPAI surveillance, detection, diagnosis and response capabilities.

There is funding of $0.472 million to enhance the state's capability and capacity to address the increased risk of emergency animal diseases, including purchasing scientific equipment, a mobile lab and trailers, and additional externally funded and asset sale reinvestment capital purchase purchases of $1.1 million.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate that answer. That was not the question I was asking. I will draw your attention to Budget Paper 3, page 23. That was the reference. It was the operating expenses for the 2024-25 budget of $258 million; the 2024-25 estimated was $338 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the difference is predominantly in relation to initiatives that have been announced and increased—for example, fruit fly—and then the announcements around drought and floods.

Mr TELFER: On that $80 million extra, can you give me a breakdown of those three amounts, the additional?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is: continuation of fruit fly response activities following further outbreaks across the Riverland with $45 million in 2025-26; the expansion of the drought support package, and we have information about the aspects of the drought support package; national eradication commitments of $8.8 million in 2025-26, including $5.4 million for red imported fire ants; and $1.6 million for tomato brown rugose fruit virus response.

Mr TELFER: Those are the 2025-26 figures. This is the 2024-25 budget difference—the $80 million. Can you just give me a breakdown of that additional $80 million for 2024-25?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for his clarification. My advice is that the major variances between 2024-25 estimated result and 2024-25 result, which I think was what the member was asking about, are primarily due to additional income in 2024-25 estimated result for commonwealth government funding, including the future drought program 2022-25, $7.5 million; the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Communities, $7 million; the national water grid programs, $5.6 million; the South Australian River Murray Irrigation Infrastructure Program business case, $3 million; implementation of sheep and goat eID, $1.4 million; and HPAI preparedness and response capability, $1 million.

There is a gross up in income and corresponding expenditure to reflect business activity in 2024-25, which was $8.8 million. Contributions from other government jurisdictions and industry towards the tomato brown rugose fruit virus response in South Australia was $3.1 million and then the dog fence upgrade, with reimbursement delayed from 2023-24 to 2024-25, was $2.8 million. This has been partially offset by the item I mentioned earlier in regard to building resilience to managing fruit fly.

Mr TELFER: Just for further clarification on the budget overspend on the operating expenses, those items you listed off, as I was scribbling down the amounts, were around about $25 million. What is the additional $55 million of operating expenses over and above what the budgeted amount was for the 2024-25 financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that that would be particularly around drought and flooding.

Mr TELFER: Can you please give me a breakdown of the additional amounts allocated for the drought and flooding expended from PIRSA to account for that overrun between the budget and the estimated?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As you would be aware, there is a government-funded package for the drought response of over $73 million. My advisers are unable to find where the honourable member is referring to $80 million.

Mr TELFER: I am referring to Budget Paper 3, page 23. There is a table with the operating expenses of all the selected agencies. On page 23, there is a difference of $80 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can confirm they are the offsets I referred to from the commonwealth that I have already outlined.

Mr TELFER: The expenses' offsets? You spoke about the amount of commonwealth grant funding coming in.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And some of the offsets as well. I believe I outlined those.

Mr TELFER: Yes, indeed, you outlined $25 million worth of additional costs. I am just wondering about that difference between the amounts you outlined and the $80 million, around about $55 million, and whether it is drought expenditure and flood expenditure as you said. I am just looking for a breakdown of how much of each of those two projects, for instance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to come back during the session with some additional information in terms of what has already been outlined and the member's calculations.

Mr TELFER: My calculations? Yes, sure. I think we need to make sure we come back to this.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Regarding additional expenditure in the 2024-25 estimated result for drought, bushfire and adverse events recovery programs: for the drought support package, funding was provided in 2024-25 for various programs, including the On-Farm Drought Infrastructure grants, the future drought preparedness and resilience programs and the Donated Fodder Transport Drought Assistance Scheme—$8 million.

Mr TELFER: Sorry, how much?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is $8 million for those. There was River Murray flood recovery expenditure for primary producer grants, irrigator support, blackwater and farm and business support of $6.5 million, and the incremental increase at that time in drought support measures was $5.1 million. The commonwealth government funding I think I have outlined already, but I will just go through it again: the Future Drought Fund in 2022-25 is $7.5 million, the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Communities Program is $7 million—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Correct; this is the government funding income. The National Water Grid programs are $6.1 million, the South Australian River Murray Irrigation Infrastructure Program business case is $3 million, eID is $3.6 million, additional expenditure during 2024-25 for fruit fly eradication response is $15 million, the national eradication commitments for high pathogenicity avian influenza and electric ant eradication are $3½ million—

Mr TELFER: Are these all incomes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is expenditure.

Mr TELFER: Sorry, can you—it is getting a bit conflated. Can you give me just the expenses that make up—you have given me the drought and the flood: the $8 million, the $6½ million and the $5.1 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry, which amounts have you just referred to?

Mr TELFER: The amounts that you just gave me: for the drought expenses, $8 million; the flood, $6.5 million; and the additional drought, $5.1 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Can you just give me the other expenses, not the income?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes. I was in the expenditure. The implementation of eID is $3.6 million; fruit fly is an additional $15 million, as I just outlined; avian flu and electric ant eradication is $3.5 million; and tomato brown rugose virus is $5.4 million. There is a gross up in income and corresponding expenditure; I think have already outlined that. Then there is the Forestry Centre of Excellence at $1.3 million and a payment, which came in 2024-25, to the Bundaleer Forest Reserve of $0.9 million, and additional funding for the upgrade of South Australia's dog fence at $1.4 million.

Mr TELFER: I thought a number of those initiatives were actually within the budget last year. You are giving expenses as a total.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that that is increases since the amounts in the previous budget.

Mr TELFER: So increases on the budget—over and above.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Correct.

Mr TELFER: Thank you; I appreciate that. Of the $8 million drought money you spoke about, I think you said $5.1 million. Are there two different amounts for drought response?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this is a combination of both what was announced back in November and a proportion of what was since announced. Obviously, a number of the drought support measures go over a number of years. Also, a large number have had significant expenditure now but the appearance in the budget papers is under these particular separate aspects.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, how much has been spent so far on drought response, either the first or second allocation? How much has been estimated to be expended in this current financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that there is, as we know, a total of $73 million budgeted. The expenditure includes approximately 20 different streams of funding, including things such as the On-Farm Drought Infrastructure scheme. This is an approximate amount because obviously we get updates every so often, and that is currently, according to my advice, at around $16 million. There are currently large numbers of applications still being received for that. There is expenditure which has occurred on the community events, and more of those are planned, so those funds have been committed but have not necessarily been invoiced and out the door as yet.

Mr TELFER: How much has been spent on community events?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not know if we have an up-to-date figure as yet because obviously there has been—I think there have been 68 community events funded so far, as in have already been held, but there are still many more being scheduled, so that will show up once they have had those events and provided the invoices. So far, 1,200 farmers have received donated fodder through the Fodder Transport Drought Assistance Scheme, most recently with a run over the June long weekend. They will put in their invoices, particularly those very recent ones. We are still waiting for those invoices to come in and be processed. Obviously, that is already committed and there are still opportunities for further runs and they are being arranged, as I understand it.

Just back on the Connecting Communities Events, I am advised that more than $313,000 has been approved. More has been requested but, as I mentioned, they are being rolled out, they are not all happening before the end of the financial year. There has been a significant jump in the demands on the Family and Business Support program, and so that additional support that was announced in the drought package is for those FaB mentors. Rural Financial Counselling, similarly, and then there are additional measures in terms of mental health, the rural support relief fund grants and so on.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, please, can you give me an amount that is estimated to have been expended or expended within the 2024-25 budget? The only number you gave me was the $16 million of the infrastructure grants. What other moneys from the drought package have been expended in the 2024-25 budget?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I just outlined, there are a number of programs which have had expenditure from them. We will have a full update at the end of the financial year.

Mr TELFER: Is there an estimated amount that you are working on currently within the current 2024-25 budget to have been expended or expected to be expended by the end of the financial year, in one week's time?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The advice I have received is that the total package expenditure committed—remembering that we know exactly where it is going, we are not just waiting for applications to come in, for example—is $47 million. In terms of the actual amount that will be out the door, that will vary because of the reasons that I have outlined. For example, amounts committed for hay runs, where those hay run invoices have not yet come in, obviously would not necessarily be paid before the end of the financial year if we do not receive those invoices before the end of the financial year.

Mr TELFER: Of the estimated $47 million that you speak about, how much is allocated within that number for expenditure for each of the different items that you have spoken about? You have spoken about the $16 million of the infrastructure grant, for the remaining $31 million can you give me a breakdown of what is expected within this current financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think we have those exact details. I would refer the member to the announcement which goes through the 20 different—

Mr TELFER: You have an amount of $47 million—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Let me finish answering.

Mr TELFER: You have an amount of $47 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You can go through the 20 different streams of assistance that are in the drought package and, as I mentioned, some of those are allocated but it will depend on when the invoices come in as to whether they are actually paid out before 30 June. For example, with the On-Farm Drought Infrastructure grants, they are now being processed and paid within 30 days, but if applications are coming in this week obviously that will not necessarily be paid out before 30 June.

Mr TELFER: Of the amount that you have said has been allocated, the $47 million, how much of each of these programs have been broken down for each of the programs out of that $47 million? That is all I am looking for, the breakdown of the allocations from what is estimated—you have given me an estimated amount of $47 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The estimates, according to my advice—these are probably a week or two old, so they can obviously increase by 30 June. I have already referred to the On-Farm Drought Infrastructure rebates, and the others are:

the PIRSA wellbeing package, which is a family and business support program, looking at $815,000;

the existing FaB program of $830,000;

the existing program of the Future Drought Fund will be around about $5½ million—and I am just doing rough rounding figures, obviously;

the Connecting Communities Events Grant is around about $240,000;

committed so far from the Donated Fodder Transport Assistance Scheme is roughly $3.2 million;

Rural Business Support relief grants, $2 million;

expenditure so far on the total grazing pressure management, support for pest management, $330,000;

rural financial counselling support—and remembering I think some of these are the additional figures rather than what was previously in the budget for this service—around about $875,000;

the future drought preparedness and resilience program, $17.4 million;

the standpipes in the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu, $388,000;

the Active Club Program, the Drought Relief Round, $357,000;

$680,000 for small business support; and

roughly $846,000 for the financial support for country students affected by drought to attend camps and excursions.

Mr TELFER: Has that large amount in the explanation of $17.4 million for future drought all been expended in 2024-25?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is committed or distributed in—

Mr TELFER: Within this current budget period?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is committed, but it is obviously for the future drought program, which, the member would be aware, is over four years.

Mr TELFER: How much of the $17.4 million is in the current financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is it does not quite work like that. It is this amount that has to be committed and that has occurred for the four years.

Mr TELFER: I am just wondering how much of it has been expended in the current 2024-25 financial year.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that in order to have a commitment from the commonwealth government for the next four years of the Future Drought Fund, we needed to make this commitment for the four years, and as soon as that commitment was made then the funding agreements were able to be progressed.

Mr TELFER: How much of that $17.4 million has been expended or is expected to be expended in the 2024-25 financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What I am referring to is that this is for the next four years. We need to, however, give the commitment in this financial year, otherwise the program would have ended on 30 June this year.

Mr TELFER: How much has actually been spent of it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just answered that question.

Mr TELFER: None?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just answered the question.

Mr TELFER: There has been none of the $17.4 million that has been expended in this financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The $17.4 million has to be committed to enable us to get the matching funding from the commonwealth government.

Mr TELFER: Yes, that is a budget allocation—I get that. I am trying to just work out how much of the money for drought support has—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It starts from 1 July this year, which is what I just said.

Mr TELFER: I am just trying to work out how much of the moneys from the drought support have actually been expended in this current financial year. You have given me an amount of $47 million that has been expended for this financial year, but obviously a significant swathe of it is not expended in this financial year. How much is going to actually be expended in this financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I have said, the amount that has to be committed has to be committed prior to the ending of the program on 30 June. That has been committed, and I think I have answered the other question according to the advice I have received.

Mr TELFER: I am just curious that, as Minister for Primary Industries in one of the most challenging drought conditions that our state has faced, certainly in recent memory if not in living memory of many farmers, there is no clarity about how much money is actually spent during the drought for farmers having to deal with those situations. All I am trying to find out is how much has actually hit the ground to support those farmers who are doing it tough at the moment, rather than how much you need to make sure you allocate for the next four years. Is that a hard number to be able to give me?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have already provided that information.

Mr TELFER: But you have not, minister. You really have not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have answered the question several times now.

Mr Brown interjecting:

Mr TELFER: Be quiet, you. Budget Paper 5, page 60—

Mr BROWN: Having a bad day mate?

Mr TELFER: Budget Paper 5, minister.

Mr Brown interjecting:

Mr TELFER: You know me—yeah, yeah.

The CHAIR: If everyone can stop interrupting, please—just get on with your question.

Mr TELFER: I am trying to, sir. I am getting interrupted. In Budget Paper 5, page 60, minister, there is a reference to the replacement coastal research vessel, the $44.4 million over four years for the purchase of a replacement coastal research vessel. I note that the initiative is delivered in partnership with the commonwealth government. Can you indicate or confirm whether the state government's contribution to the research vessel is being funded in whole or in part through commercial fishing licence fees or levies paid by industry?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: None of that is being funded through levies or commercial fishing licence fees.

Mr TELFER: What is the amount allocated from the state government portion of the funding?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The South Australian and commonwealth governments are jointly investing $44.4 million over the next four years to replace the SARDI 40-year old research vessel, the MRV Ngerin. The replacement coastal research vessel is a strategic long-term investment that is critical to the future of marine science in South Australia, and it will enhance sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management, support offshore renewable energy, lead coastal research in South Australia, mitigate biosecurity and climate threats, and attract marine initiatives and business to South Australia. Funding for the replacement vessel includes $25.4 million from the South Australian government, and the additional $19 million is provided by the commonwealth government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

Mr TELFER: Of that $25.4 million, none is going to be funded through any of the allocation from commercial fishing licence fees or levies paid by industry?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is true.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey—always keen to make a contribution.

Mr TELFER: I am sure he knows well about primary industries, Chair.

Mr BROWN: I am not allowed to be interested in primary industries?

Mr TELFER: I love it.

Mr BROWN: I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55, Sub-program 1.1: Agricultural Services. My question to the minister is: how is the state government supporting drought-affected farmers in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am delighted to provide additional information in regard to this drought support package. It is certainly the case that South Australia is facing one of the worst droughts in memory, and many of the farms and farming areas across the state have some of the lowest rainfalls on record. Obviously, we are pleased to see some recent rain, but it has not been in sufficient quantities in most areas and certainly has not been across enough areas to have the sort of positive impact that we would want.

It is also really important to acknowledge that, even if the rains come—and if they come to the extent they can at the right times from here on in—the impacts of the drought will still be felt significantly, not just this year but for the next two years and possibly even more, depending on the area. The state government committed $18 million back in November 2024 and developed a package that was based on the feedback we had from farmers, from peak bodies and from regional communities. We have since increased that to a total of $73 million, and the new support schemes are across a number of different areas. They include direct financial relief, support for regional communities, programs to fund pest animal management, and funding for drought preparedness and resilience programs.

It is also important to note that the package has been designed to complement what is already available from a federal level. There are concessional loans and some income and financial support through the Farm Household Allowance, the Farm Management Deposit Scheme and ATO measures, such as payment plans, tax deductions and small business tax concessions.

The Premier and I have been advocating to the commonwealth in terms of changes that we think would be appropriate for some of the federal programs, but in terms of the South Australian government's drought support package, the $73 million in total includes $18 million for on-farm drought infrastructure grants for rebates that assist with projects to manage drought conditions and strengthen drought preparedness.

That is important because it addresses both current needs—for example, containment fencing was one area that was raised with me as something that some of those areas that are not used to drought had not necessarily needed to invest in previously—and also water infrastructure or fodder storage. There has been a very, very high uptake of those grants. We have hit, I think, more than 2,500 applications for those grants, which shows that they are appreciated and useful.

The first tranche was small grants of up to $5,000, and only 25 per cent co-contribution from primary producers was required. The revised package, based on feedback from industry, was of grants of up to $20,000 with a 50 per cent co-contribution. Both of those streams continue to be available. There is $6 million to assist charities with freight costs to transport donated fodder to assist farmers with feeding livestock. I would certainly like to take the opportunity to again put on the record the government's appreciation to the five charities that are currently involved in making those deliveries.

There is immediate financial relief by providing rebates for the emergency services levy and commercial vehicle registration fees for primary producers receiving the commonwealth's Farm Household Allowance. There is $3.5 million for a strategy to boost mental health and resilience in drought-affected areas, and an additional $1 million for rural financial counselling support. There is $3.5 million in additional supports for rural small businesses, $3.1 million to assist with pest management, and $4.5 million to support producers with the implementation of eID.

There is $1.4 million to co-invest with councils in the upgrade of regional standpipes, $1.1 million to support the provision of standpipes for critical water needs in the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu, $0.5 million to make water available from Bundaleer and/or Beetaloo reservoirs, and $2 million to assist sports and recreation clubs in drought-affected areas through the Active Club Program.

There is a Regional Event Fund, and a drought-specific round has been put forward for that—$400,000 to develop and encourage new regional events. That is particularly relevant for the non-farming businesses in our regional areas, because, as we know, when farmers are doing it tough it affects their local regional economies. Things like the Regional Event Fund are designed to bring more people to our regional areas to support local businesses in those regional drought-affected areas and to give support to suppliers in those areas.

There is also financial support for country students affected by drought to attend camps and excursions, and grants of up to $5,000 for the Connecting Communities Events programs, which I think I have mentioned earlier in this estimates committee. We have also introduced a fee waiver for biosecurity inspections for hay that is coming from interstate. I mentioned earlier the budget commitment over four years for the continuation of the Family and Business Support Mentors and the Rural Financial Counselling Service and the funding provided to the state and federal Future Drought Fund. It is probably important to mention some of the things within that. It comprises the Farm Business Resilience Program and the regional drought resilience plans and the drought hubs.

I was fortunate on Friday to attend a Livestock SA event, the AgRi-Silience event, which was talking about some of the programs that are run through that I have just mentioned. One particular comment stood out to me with people I was talking to there. There were a couple of established farmers, not new farmers, who had done one of the earlier AgRi-Silience courses, they thought, three years ago. They said what they learned from that, despite being established farmers, had actually got them through the last two years of drought, so that was very encouraging about how these programs are assisting.

There has been a strong uptake of many of the support measures, indicating that the assistance is relevant and valued, which makes sense given that we actually developed these packages closely in tandem with primary producers as well as their industry bodies.

Mr TELFER: I am still getting used to this red place, where people just talk for as long as they like. I have a couple of follow-ups.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You do not think drought is an important enough issue to be discussing at length?

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, just get on with your question.

Mr TELFER: I have a couple of follow-ups from that Dixer answer. Minister, you spoke about changes that you and the Premier are actively advocating for to the federal government. What are those changes that you are proactively advocating for?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am glad the honourable member does think that drought should have some extensive answers—

Mr TELFER: Immediate too.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —given how much of the state is in drought. There are a number of aspects we have been advocating to the commonwealth on. I will not necessarily go into details of all of them, but several that I have referred to publicly already include the assets test. There is currently a $5½ million dollar assets test, according to my advice, for farmers to be eligible for the Farm Household Allowance.

There is a strong case to be made, in my view, that given the changes to valuations of land across the nation, not just here in South Australia, that figure should be higher. If it were, it would include more people. Currently, according to the figures I have received, roughly 10 per cent of primary producers in South Australia are in receipt of the Farm Household Allowance, which makes sense. Obviously, that sort of assistance is designed to assist those who are in greatest need.

Some of the state government programs are linked to receipt of the Farm Household Allowance—for example, the emergency services levy rebate and also the 100 rebate for commercial vehicle registration. That is available for farmers who are in receipt of the Farm Household Allowance. Obviously, if the assets test was increased and more people became eligible, then more people would also become eligible for the state assistance under that part of the program.

The interest rate for concessional loans, the RIC loans, is also an aspect that I have had discussions with the commonwealth about. My advice is it is currently around 5.2 per cent. Whilst that is certainly preferable to some commercial rates—one farmer I was speaking to said that his commercial rates were around 12 per cent—then that is clearly a significantly lower level in terms of a concessional loan, but there is also a case to be made, given that there has been a reduction in interest rates more broadly, that that 5.2 per cent should be a lower rate.

Mr TELFER: The amount that you quoted, you said around 10 per cent—I believe it is less than 10 per cent—of farmers actually qualify for the Farm Household Allowance, yet you have still used this as the basis for your additional funding for drought. Why use that measure when you know already, as you stated in your explanation, that it is not really a good measure of farmers who are experiencing drought conditions at the moment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is the requirement for the direct ESL rebate and the 100 per cent concession on commercial vehicle registration. The honourable member would be aware that primary producers already receive a 50 per cent reduction on their commercial vehicle registration. First of all, to address why we would use that, there are probably two reasons. The first is it is already established and therefore it is easy to access. If someone is able to show they are on the Farm Household Allowance, that is a relatively simple process, so there is less administration involved, which makes it quicker for farmers to access. The second is, clearly, any support is aimed at those most in need, and therefore that is an appropriate measure.

It is worth mentioning also, though, that those who may not qualify for that can apply for the $1,500 grants which are being administered through Rural Business Support. They do not require receipt of Farm Household Allowance. That can be used for paying ESL, it can be used for paying a utility bill, it can be used for paying for new school uniforms—whatever might be appropriate for an individual circumstance.

Mr TELFER: Just on that, how many of the ESL and registration paybacks have been accessed by that 10 per cent of farmers in South Australia who actually qualify for the Farm Household Allowance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the commercial vehicle registration relief information would need to be accessed through the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and the emergency services levy, of course, is through RevenueSA.

Mr TELFER: This is within the budget of PIRSA. It is an allocation within the budget of PIRSA.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, it is not within the PIRSA budget. It is within the budgets of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and RevenueSA.

Mr TELFER: So you do not have that number? It is strange that as primary industries minister one of the things you are really leaning into is one of your drought supports and you do not have that information at hand as the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think if something is in the budget of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport it makes sense to ask the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport?

Mr TELFER: How many of the $1,500 grants have been taken up so far?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that, as at just after the middle of June, there had been 248 processed and approved.

Mr TELFER: Minister, I will move on from this aspect and refer to Budget Paper 5, page 59. There is an operating initiative around fruit fly eradication providing $45 million in 2025-26 to continue emergency fruit fly response activities following further outbreaks. Can the minister break down specifically what activities are to be continued and expanded?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As the member may be aware, there are outbreaks not just in the Riverland but also in the metropolitan area and also a small outbreak in Ceduna. There is information available on each of those. In terms of the outbreaks in the Riverland, there are still a number of outbreaks. So although the current amount is considered to be 56, it does not mean that those outbreaks are active, in the sense that there needs to be a time lapse for resolution of the detections until the resolution, because of the international trade protocols. That means they cannot be resolved until 23 December this year.

Significant efforts continue to be applied to eradicate at the multiple outbreaks sites in the Riverland. There are over 220 staff on the frontline of the Riverland response, deploying the most comprehensive suite of controls ever applied, according to my advice, as part of the plan to eradicate fruit fly. That includes applying bait and deploying devices to attract and kill fruit flies, regular checks of fruit for the presence of larvae, further deployment of what are called attract-and-kill devices, and applying a staged aerial release program for sterile fruit flies across outbreak areas in the region.

PIRSA's sterile insect technology (SIT) breeding facility has been expanded and became fully operational in November 2023. An increased capacity enables up to 40 million sterile flies to be released weekly. Three billion sterile flies have been released in the Riverland since its commencement. Industry continues to be consulted and engaged in the process through the Riverland Fruit Fly Committee and through joint funding by industry with PIRSA for a Riverland Fruit Fly Coordinator.

As of 25 May, no flies were detected in 18 of the 56 outbreak areas. In terms of the other outbreak areas, one is in Glynde, but I think I will go to the Salisbury outbreak prior to that. The last detection there occurred on 6 May this year. There is a 12-week program of SIT releases, which began on 29 August 2024 and released over 19 million sterile flies over the Salisbury North outbreak area. There will be a further release, planned for August, in some of the metropolitan areas.

It is important to note that the release of the sterile flies and the timing of that is somewhat weather dependent, so there are variations seasonally and also with the actual weather, according to my advice. This particular response has an added complexity in that the 15-kilometre suspension area that is established around the Salisbury outbreak also transects the Glynde outbreak suspension area.

Mr TELFER: How much did the state government contribute to the fumigation facilities at the Pooraka produce market?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that over $4 million has been provided by the state government towards the fumigation facility. I can get the exact figure, but it is more than $4 million.

Mr TELFER: I certainly would appreciate the exact figure because it is obviously a pretty important project. Is there any money in the budget for the development of stage 2, the irradiation facility, at the Pooraka market?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Not in the current budget. There have been ongoing discussions with the proponents of stage 2 of the Pooraka market and those discussions will continue.

Mr TELFER: What was the total project cost for the fumigation facilities at the Pooraka produce market? You say the government put in over $4 million. What was the total project cost of that in the end?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is the total project cost of stage 1? We can get that and I will bring it back to you.

Mr TELFER: What are the estimates for the potential of the development of stage 2, the irradiation facility?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that stage 2 is not in the current budget papers, I am not sure what you would be referring to in terms of that question.

Mr TELFER: Has there been any work done to establish what a framework might look like for consideration for future budgets?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned, there have been ongoing discussions around this particular project.

Ms THOMPSON: What is the government doing to support the wine industry, which is facing extremely challenging conditions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I am sure members would be aware, the South Australian wine industry is facing significant challenges, particularly in red wine oversupply. There is a global oversupply of red wine and significant changes to consumer preferences and consumer demands that has led to significant oversupply domestically as well. In addition to that, there was the significant challenges of the wine tariffs imposed by China, and that has, along with other aspects that are being faced by our grapegrowers and wine producers, caused significant impacts.

The current drought and increased cost of production is also adding to the pressures faced by grapegrowers and I am very pleased that the Malinauskas government continues to respond to these challenges to assist our grape and wine industry. For wine grapegrowers in South Australia's 18 wine regions, the wine surplus plus the underlying excess potential production from existing vineyard plantings has led to falling demand and also pricing for red wine grapes, and that is particularly shiraz and cabernet sauvignon.

This has been felt most acutely in the Riverland wine region, where over 80 per cent of red wine grapes are shiraz and cabernet sauvignon. In 2024, the average purchase value per tonne for red fruit was $237 per tonne, which was a further 7 per cent decrease in value from the vintage of 2023. The government understands that the oversupply of red wine grapes is an issue that affects all Australian wine regions and, given this, I proposed a national Viticulture and Wine Sector Working Group be established, which was approved by the meeting of agricultural ministers back in 2024.

The working group comprises representatives of commonwealth, state and territory governments, as well as key industry groups, and they were tasked with working together to develop a national approach to address the oversupply of red wine and the acute issues being faced by the sector as well as supporting future balance and profitability returning to the sector. The working group consulted extensively nationwide with impacted wine regions on the challenges being faced by the sector.

The working group also commissioned a report by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson, Executive Director of the Wine Economics Research Centre, titled 'Australia's Wine Industry Crisis and Ways Forward: An Independent Review'. The working group's final report was delivered in July 2024 and endorsed by the agricultural ministers in October 2024. It made six recommendations across industry, commonwealth government and the state government to take forward.

That included addressing mental health challenges and financial distress, addressing barriers to exit and diversification, providing data and insights for better informed decision-making, examining commercial contract arrangements across the grape and wine sector supply chain, boosting demand for Australian wine at home and overseas, and improving industry leadership and long-term strategic direction supported by investment in research and development.

The commonwealth and state governments and industry groups are continuing to deliver a range of initiatives for the grape and wine industry, partly based on these recommendations. Some examples include a $3½ million Grape and Wine Sector Long-Term Viability Support Package, which was launched by the commonwealth government in June 2024 to support long-term viability of the industry to respond to the recommendations.

The package is funding a range of activities which aim to build demand and new markets for wine, both domestically and internationally, and also to provide better data for growers to make decisions and to diversify into alternative products and investigate competition and regulatory issues. The Department of Primary Industries and Regions is supporting the Department for Trade and Investment by taking a lead on what is called Pillar 4 technical cooperation.

South Australia and China share a long history of technical, scientific and research exchange in the wine sector, and this is a mutually beneficial collaboration which covers agricultural technology, climate adaptation, no and low-alcohol wine technology and other aspects. Deepening this collaboration will deliver practical benefits in both markets as well as building trust and goodwill.

The Malinauskas government has provided a $1.85 million wine exporter China re-engagement support program to support the South Australian wine sector to re-engage with China following their government lifting tariffs that were imposed on Australian wine. That lifting occurred initially in March 2024 and was then followed up with the longer term lifting. South Australian wine exports to mainland China reached $855 million during the 12 months since tariffs were lifted on 29 March 2024, up from $4.4 million through the same period in the previous year, making it now the largest importer of South Australian wines by value.

For comparison, the 12-month running total wine exports to mainland China reached $947 million in October 2020, just before the tariffs, which was the highest on record. However, Chinese wine consumption is much lower than it was before the import tariffs were imposed so it will take more time before it becomes clear what, if you like, the new normal level of exports to mainland China will be. This package will run through to June 2026, and will provide the South Australian wine industry with in-market insights and capability building to continue to re-enter the China market in a risk-controlled manner.

To boost sales in traditional markets like the United States and Europe, and in emerging markets, in the past 12 months the government of South Australia has launched more than 21 export diversification initiatives in the USA, Japan, Mumbai, South Korea, the Netherlands, France, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The South Australian Wine Ambassadors Club is part of the wine export diversification program and will create an international network of advocates who share a passion for South Australian wine. Ambassadors' endorsement will contribute to raising the profile, reputation and awareness of South Australian wine internationally, as well as influencing their communities to drive sales through targeted trade and educational initiatives.

On 1 June this year, the Minister for Trade and Investment announced that South Australian exporters will receive a $5 million boost in the state budget, as has occurred, as the Malinauskas government increases support for key sectors to help them respond to continuing challenges in the global trading environment. The state budget incudes $2½ million per annum in 2025-26 and 2026-27 dedicated to programs to support industry to diversify and connect with importers in new or growing markets across the world. Capability development programs to be funded under the $5 million investment include market intelligence, targeted business missions and facilitator of importer visits to South Australia to support exporters to diversify and access new markets.

My department continues to support Project 250 with annual funding of $250,000 until 2026. This funding is used to provide a broad range of market and industry development initiatives to help drive strong sales growth in the South Australian wine industry.

On 1 November last year I announced a $2½ million South Australian Wine Recovery Program established by both the Albanese and Malinauskas governments to further support the wine industry to recover and return to productivity and sustainability. The South Australian Wine Recovery Program streams support the recommendations of the national Viticulture and Wine Sector Working Group by focusing on three main streams.

The first is vineyard waste management, and this is certainly something that has been raised with me on multiple occasions by people within the grapegrowing sector. This will address barriers for growers to exit or diversify their crops by supporting waste management of already abandoned or removed vineyards. One of the issues particularly, for example, is around CCA-treated posts which have been used for a very long time, and in terms of being able to change the use of land from grapes into something else, the removal of those posts and having destruction or a way to deal with those posts is a long-term challenge, and that will be part of the work that is being done here.

The second is boosting demand for Australian wine at home, which is really about building local demand for South Australian wine here and elsewhere in Australia, and also improving industry leadership and long-term strategic direction by building regional grape and wine capability.

Coming back to the CCA post or treated timber that I referred to, on 7 March, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Julie Collins, our South Australian Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, the Hon. Susan Close, and I announced a new project for sustainable waste management of those, which is being funded through the South Australian Wine Recovery Program.

The department has committed $50,000 for wine industry bodies statewide to hold community events focusing on mental health and wellbeing in their regions. This is for winemakers, grapegrowers and others in industry hard hit by challenging conditions. The Rural Business Support Relief Fund is assisting wine grapegrowers across the state who are experiencing challenges by providing financial support, making grants available to those eligible of up to $1,500 to accommodate routine costs. Additional funding has also been provided to Rural Business Support to increase rural financial counselling services for the wine and viticulture industry.

Mr TELFER: Minister, that is 10 minutes of my life I am not going to get back.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sorry you do not think the wine industry is important.

Mr TELFER: Can I point you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55.

The CHAIR: Has the minister finished?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I had finished, yes.

The CHAIR: Next question.

Mr TELFER: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55, thank you, sir. I just want to unpack a little bit more around some of the drought funding arrangements, minister, and the charity freight rebates in particular. The original allocation was for $2 million for support in that area; is that right, that was the original announcement?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That was the announcement back in November 2024, yes.

Mr TELFER: And there was an additional $4 million on top?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Correct.

Mr TELFER: I was trying to write down the numbers when you were going through them before. Are you saying there is $3.4 million out of that $6 million that have been expended so far in the 2024-25 financial year, or expected to be?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not have that in front of me, but if that is the figure, I will, on this occasion, take the word of the honourable member, if that is what I said.

Mr TELFER: I will wait for clarification.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that just over $3.4 million has been paid from that. As I mentioned, the charities are organising their hay runs. We have already had a large number and we are very, very grateful to the five charities which are involved. They will then put in their invoices and be reimbursed, and there are more hay runs being organised as we speak by those charities.

Mr TELFER: Which charitable organisations have received support so far of the $3.4 million that have been expended?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The organisations involved so far include Rural Aid, Rapid Relief Team, Farmers Relief Agency, Aussie Hay Runners, Need for Feed and the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association.

Mr TELFER: How much of that $3.4 million that has been expended so far has been allocated to each?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It has been different amounts, depending on the charity. The process is that the charities put forward proposals for hay runs and outline where they are going and how many bales or tonnes they expect to be able to provide. Those applications are then assessed and an agreement is put in place after that.

Mr TELFER: How much has been allocated out of that $3.4 million to each of the organisations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We do not have that detail; we can take it on notice and bring back a response.

Mr TELFER: I certainly would appreciate that. In response to the answer you just gave around the proposals that are put forward, how many tonnes of fodder have been delivered so far using that funding, that $3.4 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is almost 10,200 tonnes.

Mr TELFER: So 10,200 tonnes of fodder. How many primary producers has that serviced?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is 1,267 as at just after the middle of June.

Mr TELFER: Can you provide a regional breakdown of where donated fodder has been delivered under this scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A regional breakdown? I am fairly sure I could take that on notice and bring back a response on that. One of the changes that we made to this for the second tranche of the drought support program in regard to the donated fodder was that we wanted to ensure as far as possible that there was a good spread across the state. Some of the feedback from the first program was that it might be that one area was getting several runs from different charities and another area not receiving a run.

Whilst we acknowledge the independence of the charities and the fact that they want to retain that independence and autonomy, we did ask for them to provide greater information around where they saw the need, and the department, according to my advice, was then able to provide feedback in terms of those areas that had not received a hay run, with the obvious goal that there will be a better spread, depending of course on need, but that some areas are not missing out.

Mr TELFER: Can I seek clarification from you, minister: if a farmer who has had fodder donated to them as part of a charity run, does that mean that they go to the bottom of the list after receiving a donation for future consideration, however much they actually get from the run? Can you clarify that for me?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can clarify that as I received a similar question in parliament last week in the upper house, and I think I can provide some additional information based on the advice I received. First of all, farmers contact the charities direct—they do not contact PIRSA. Each of the charities' contact details are available on the PIRSA website. Charities are not told by PIRSA that they must not provide more hay to a farmer who has already received it—that is not part of the role of PIRSA.

However, my advice is that in discussions PIRSA is encouraging those charities to consider those farmers who are in equal need but have not received any hay previously, with the suggestion that it would be appropriate perhaps for those farmers who are in equal need and have not received hay previously to perhaps be recipients of future runs. I think that is probably an approach that most people would consider appropriate.

Mr TELFER: How is need measured, as you refer to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: PIRSA does not measure need. As I mentioned, the primary producers contact the charities, and the charities are able to make their decisions about where they do their hay runs and to whom. Where there is information sought by the charities and discussions with the team in PIRSA, obviously if there is additional information available they would be able to make that available to those charities.

Mr TELFER: Just for clarification, in the previous answer you gave you spoke about those with equal need, that if one has received support previously and one has not, then the one that has not would take priority. That was my understanding of your explanation. The question was how is need actually measured?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think the words that the honourable member has repeated are exactly what I said. I said not that they would take priority, but simply that PIRSA is asking the charities to take into consideration where an individual farmer has received a hay run previously. If there are others who have not, who would, on face value, also appear to be in need, that is something they should take into consideration.

Ultimately, those decisions are for the charities involved; they are organising the runs. I would also like to again put on the record my thanks to them. They not only organise runs but some of them also organise community events as part of those runs. Some of those are funded through the government's community events program and some are self-funded by charities.

Mr TELFER: So it is the charities which ascertain and judge the need?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Essentially it is, but obviously they can avail themselves of information that can be provided by PIRSA.

Mr TELFER: Yes, but they make the decision on the need for the allocation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They make the decision on where they do their hay runs.

Mr TELFER: So PIRSA has no influence or direction on the charities as to where they might direct or even suggest there may be a heightened need for this fodder support in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: PIRSA makes suggestions, but the charities, according to my advice, will make the ultimate decision. I will just check that there is no other information that I can provide. I have a little bit of additional advice. The charities will put in a proposal to PIRSA for pre-approval, and PIRSA will look at those proposals to try to ensure there is no duplication. For example, as I mentioned earlier, we do not want three runs going to one town and none going to other areas.

Whilst it would be the case that PIRSA would potentially say, 'No, we won't approve this run because it is going to an area where there is already a run or there's one scheduled the following week, or one went two weeks ago,' regarding the suggestion that PIRSA makes an individual decision around individual farmers and whether they are recipients, I refer to my previous answer which was that that is not the case.

Mr TELFER: So PIRSA has no involvement in working out that if a farmer has already received some they will go to the bottom of the line? PIRSA has no involvement in that at all?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is correct. PIRSA does not get involved in the distribution on an individual farmer level.

Mr TELFER: Is this sort of detail included in any sort of memorandum of understanding between PIRSA and the charity hay runs?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are guidelines that are provided, but I think it is also important to note that there is a team within PIRSA that is dealing with drought support and they are having conversations with organisations about how to get the best outcomes. I think everyone would agree that we want to get the best spread of fodder to the areas most in need and to as many farmers as possible who are primary producers as their main role, so that they get the assistance that is available through this transport subsidy. There is an agreement put in place, the proposal is pre-approved, and that results in an agreement which, once the invoices come in, enables those amounts to be paid out for the transport.

Mr TELFER: Is there anything within the agreement that speaks about that distribution aspect with farmers that have already received fodder?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The guidelines, which are on our website, are referenced back in the agreement.

Mr TELFER: The guidelines are referenced in the agreement?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, according to my advice.

Mr TELFER: Is the agreement purely that the charities will adhere to the guidelines?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That would obviously be one aspect. There will be other aspects around behaving properly and that sort of thing but, in terms of the aspect you are asking about, I think that is a fair comment.

Mr TELFER: So the guidelines are there, and the guidelines say that if there are two farmers of equal need, they will take into consideration whether one farmer has had a distribution already. That is within the guidelines?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The guidelines do not go into that level of detail, from my memory. We can try to get them up on the website now, or indeed the honourable member may wish to do so. From my memory, they refer to giving due consideration to matters of need and equity, or words to that effect. We will just get the exact wording for you.

First of all, I will just correct the record. Apparently the guidelines are not on the website because there are only five charities which are involved and they are sent to the charities once they express interest. We are getting sent through the exact guidelines, but I have had clarification that it talks in general sense about having regard to need and equity.

Mr TELFER: So the guidelines are not a public document.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They are not on the website, but I do not think there is any reason they could not be released. I am happy to have them released or provided to the honourable member. We can certainly put that as part of our responses to this.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, because what I am hearing, from experiences on the ground with farmers, is that they are certainly being told by the organisations responsible for distribution that this is the case, 'This is the agreement that we've got with the government,' and the advice I am receiving through this committee is different. I am trying to work out where the breakdown of understanding is.

If a charity is saying to an individual farmer that because they have previously received a donation, irrespective of the size, they are at the bottom of the priority list, are you saying that is misguided, based on the guidelines or the MOU that they have with the government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What I would suggest, and I do appreciate that we are probably both speculating to a degree, is that a charity will make a decision based on the need as they see it, informed by information that can be provided by PIRSA if required. If a charity knows that they have had a large amount of interest from a region, and they are planning to make another run to that region, it would not be unreasonable that they would want to go to farmers who have not received hay previously rather than those farmers missing out a second time and a farmer who has received assistance potentially getting multiples.

Mr TELFER: But you are saying they are not restricted by any part of the agreement with the government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the activity pre-approval, it refers to applicants are to work with PIRSA to design fodder transport activities to ensure fodder reaches farmers in greatest need. Each run must be approved by PIRSA before it commences. There needs to be information provided, taking into account privacy obligations, including the location of delivery, the number of farmers being assisted and the number of livestock, the volume and nature of fodder to be provided including quality verification, and the number of trucks involved in each delivery and the distance travelled.

Mr TELFER: Who undertakes the quality verification that you referred to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: From memory, the charities need to provide a statement of verification, but I will get further clarification on that. I am advised that the charities are asked for evidence of the quality. That could include something like a feed test, or there may be other mechanisms that would be appropriate as well.

Mr TELFER: What other measures would be appropriate? For mine, a feed test would be the ultimate. That would be a consistent measure. What other measures to which you are referring might they be able to rely on?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it probably is fair, to use the honourable member's term, that a feed test would be the ultimate, but a detailed description may also be appropriate, particularly if the feed that is coming in is, for example, pellets. Another is vendor declarations that provide information on the quality of fodder. They are the items that can be provided.

Mr TELFER: Is a vendor declaration suffice for hay?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is yes.

Mr TELFER: What proportion of the 10,200 tonnes of fodder has had a feed test actually provided and how many have had a vendor declaration?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We would need to take that on notice and bring back a response.

Mr TELFER: I would appreciate that. What I am hearing from people on the ground is there is obviously a pretty varied quality actually being delivered to people. There is a lot of frustration because what has been declared by a vendor at whatever point has not actually been delivered on the ground. I am also curious about what you referred to with the farmer approval process that PIRSA goes through for each farmer before they are ticked off as far as distribution goes. What is the process that PIRSA actually undertakes to approve a farmer?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are probably a couple of things to respond to there. First of all, you referred to something like 'farmer approval'. I do not think I used those terms, so perhaps in a moment we can just get clarity around what that question is.

To come back to the fodder quality issue, my advice is that early on, perhaps in the first tranche of assistance for donated fodder, there were issues around quality. Some was very high quality, but of course being donated fodder some was not so high and that was the reason, in the second tranche, the extended package to $6 million of the transport subsidy, there was the additional focus on quality and that includes, from the items that I have read out in terms of what should be provided, discussions with charities about what farmers need. Obviously, they are very grateful to receive fodder, but it needs to be fodder that can actually meet their needs. My advice is that there has been less negative feedback in the second tranche.

Mr TELFER: So there were no structures within the original $2 million to confirm the quality of the product coming in?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that in the first round good quality was encouraged, but we tightened up the requirements in the second round because of the feedback we had received.

Mr TELFER: Just going back to the farmer approval process, which I wrote down as the direct words from you that you read off the phone before around the process that PIRSA uses when confirming the proposals put forward by charities and whether they get approval or not from PIRSA, you spoke about a 'farmer approval process'.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We think that what you are referring to is when I referred to the pre-approval process. It may have been that perhaps I mumbled or you did not hear. We referred to a pre-approval process.

Mr TELFER: Yes, that is pre-approval for the charities, but your direct words were 'farmer approval process' as the proposal that is put forward by the charities when ascertaining whether there is funding or not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Okay, we will have to agree to disagree and check the Hansard, but I think the relevant point is that you obviously have a question around some aspects, so if you can be specific about what your question is, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr TELFER: When you said 'farmer approval process', that is the bit that pricked up my ears because you firstly say that PIRSA do not have any process, it is all to do with the charities, but the charities have to come to PIRSA with what they are putting forward as a project that they want to consider to be funded under the fodder—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They provide that proposal. It does not provide in that information, of course, as far as I am aware, that farmer Jones or farmer Susan will be receiving fodder. It does not go into that detail. I think there must have been a mishearing of whatever the member is referring to.

Mr TELFER: I will make sure I check the Hansard in the morning tea break and go from there. One other aspect that I was surprised at was the travel cap. Can I receive some clarification as to why there was a travel cap of 1,500 kilometres in the original funding stream? Why was that in place and what was reasoning behind it because it obviously excluded a significant portion of the state from receiving fodder that was coming from the Eastern States?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there were two aspects of the rationale. The first is that other jurisdictions that had a fodder assistance scheme transport subsidy had a 1500-kilometre limit. The second, though, which I think is more relevant, is that at the time of the first announced tranche of assistance there was still fodder available, for example in Victoria, and it would make sense from cost effectiveness to be accessing fodder as close to South Australia as possible, rather than, for example, Western Australia. However, the feedback received was that indeed, as the honourable member has referred to, there were areas that were missing out because of that, which is why, in the second tranche, that 1,500-kilometre cap has been removed.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, in terms of self-interest for my electorate, it meant that there were farmers who were dealing with some of the most challenging drought conditions—even more so than some of their cousins closer to Victoria who were able to tap into that fodder—who were not able to get fodder. I am surprised that you would just copy and paste a 1,500-kilometre distance from the Eastern States, where they obviously do not have to deal with the same level of distance that we have to in South Australia.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, and I am glad that we have been able to take on board the feedback and respond accordingly. I was pleased to see that last weekend there was a run to Streaky Bay, which is important. I understand that there are potentially more proposals coming in that will assist Eyre Peninsula and the western part of the state.

Mr TELFER: That feed certainly did not go 1,500 kilometres. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55; I want to ask a few questions around the sheep and goat eID. The government announced $4.5 million for subsidies on the cost of electronic identification tags for farmed sheep and goats as part of stage 2 of the program. I am curious, minister, about why the tag rebate has reportedly dropped from 95¢ per tag, or 50 per cent, to just 25 per cent from 1 July. What consultation was undertaken with industry before that change was made?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The tag subsidy was due to finish on 30 June this year. Compared to other states, we have had a more generous subsidy than certainly a number of the other states. The additional amount that was announced for the implementation of sheep and farmed goats eID was considered as part of the drought package, because obviously an additional cost without further tag subsidies would have been an additional impost on farmers who are already going through very difficult times. Of course, eID itself remains an important component of protecting our South Australian producers, because the last thing we want is a traceability difficulty in the event of an outbreak of an exotic animal disease without having better traceability than we have had so far.

I meet very regularly with Livestock SA, with the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association and indeed with all the other major industry bodies. I had consultation with them, Livestock SA in particular, around the additional support. The feedback was that putting most if not all of that additional support into tag subsidies would be the best way to assist our producers. So, over a 16-month period from 1 January 2024 through to April 2025, 4,269 producers have received a 95¢ discount on the year-of-birth colour eID tags at point of sale. This equates to 3,623 million devices, or a bit more than that, and over $3.442 million worth of rebates. Prior to that, there were also some rebates when the point of sale was not yet in place. So continuing a tag subsidy is considered an appropriate way to support our primary producers.

It is probably worth remembering, also, that additional parts of the support package that were already in place included essential equipment and infrastructure rebates for saleyards, for processors, for producers, for livestock agents, for agricultural shows and events, and also for schools.

Mr TELFER: What was the rationale behind the decision to reduce the tag rebate? Is that something that the industry—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not agree with the characterisation. The decision was to extend the rebate program which was due to finish, in which case there would have been zero rebate from 1 July. Instead, we have provided a further rebate.

Mr TELFER: So upon the decision to extend the rebate, and the decision to reduce the rebate, what was the rationale behind that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think there was ever an expectation that there would be an ongoing subsidy for evermore for eID tags. The two-year point-of-sale eID tag discount of 47.5¢ is an extension of providing subsidies for this purpose.

Mr TELFER: You spoke about how you meet regularly with industry. What was their ask in regard to ongoing tag rebates?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We had a number of different discussions. We discussed whether a larger rebate for a shorter period of time would work best, or whether a rebate, as we have ended up landing on, that was over a further two years would be appropriate. I think it is probably fair to say there will always be a diversity of opinions on any particular matter, but through consultation this is where we landed.

Mr TELFER: Given that Livestock SA has identified the need for $11 million for stage 2 funding to support the government mandated sheep and farmed goat rollout, how does the minister justify that funding shortfall?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I said, the discussions were around what would be best for producers in terms of where we target the support that we had announced, and providing nearly all of that to producers for an eID tag discount—and it probably should be called a discount because it is at point of sale, as I understand it—was considered the most appropriate one. There is also a number of other aspects of the eID support package, remembering that, of course, we announced an additional $4.5 million in April, but prior to that we already had a significant investment of $12.869 million over two years from both state and commonwealth funding.

We are, as I mentioned, also funding support for essential equipment and also the eID Advantage Program. This was developed, as I recall, particularly with Livestock SA and others, because it is a three-year program to assist producers and the supply chain to improve their awareness and knowledge of the national mandatory eID implementation, and also the practical application of eID technology. As I mentioned, it is for traceability, but it also assists with productivity and profitability. Meat and Livestock Australia are contributing an additional $140,000 which makes the eID Advantage Program a $1.04 million program.

Mr TELFER: So with the subsidy changing, basically that additional cost burden is going to be on primary producers?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Well, we are continuing to provide a discount in this case of 47.5¢ per tag.

Mr TELFER: So the difference between those two is going to be a burden on industry?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Producers have always needed to pay for tags as part of their business costs. Here in South Australia, we provided a subsidy and now we have committed to providing a further subsidy for the next two years.

Mr TELFER: Do you think eID tagging subsidies are a drought support measure?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is a matter of the cost of doing business for drought-affected farmers. In this case, eID tags are obviously a cost of doing business and so this is one way that we can assist them in reducing their costs over the next two years.

Mr TELFER: I was curious that included in the drought measures is an extension, as you call it, of the subsidy but a lesser subsidy and then calling it drought measures. Is this something which has been government mandated but you are now dressing it up as a drought support measure?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is a nationally mandated program. I have just been reminded that this was something specifically raised by Livestock SA at the drought round table that they had with the Premier, and my understanding is it has also been constantly raised by Livestock SA throughout the drought advisory groups.

Mr TELFER: Just one more before 11 o'clock. Back to the charity hay run, we have we have bounced around a lot of numbers, and I am looking for a bit of clarification. You spoke about the $3.4 million that have been allocated in this 2024-25 financial year as the amount that has been expended so far.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The subsidy?

Mr TELFER: The amount that has been expended so far for the fodder charity subsidy, $3.4 million? We have said that number a few times. It is what has been expended so far?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is my advice, yes.

Mr TELFER: So for clarification, there is still $2.6 million of funding to be allocated that is still available for charity hay runs from now onwards; is that right?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: According to my maths, yes, that would be right.

Mr TELFER: So that is still an amount which is available for those five or six charities to apply to PIRSA for additional funding for future charity hay runs?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, that is my understanding.

Sitting suspended from 11:01 to 11:17.

The CHAIR: I understand the minister has responses to some of the questions that she said she would get back to, so if you want to lead the way, minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I undertook to provide some additional information or clarification in regard to the Pooraka market. The total state funding was $4.2 million, according to my advice. I just want to clarify that when I said there was nothing in the budget for stage 2, that is nothing new in this budget. It is worth pointing out that obviously there had been announcements made in previous budgets, so I did not want to be misleading the member there.

Mr TELFER: For clarification on that, is there a cost expectation for future budgets for the development of stage 2?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There I can refer back to my earlier answer where I said there are discussions that are continuing.

Mr TELFER: I will continue on with questions around the eID. It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55, obviously the rollout and the management of it. You referred to some of the market challenges and the like for the industry. Is there consideration within government to increase the rebate to match what it previously was or to provide any additional support to producers if the cost of eID tags increase due to supply chain or market pressures?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that is a bit of a hypothetical question. I know that when the first part of the mandatory eID became the situation, there was a concern that the tag amounts would increase. According to my advice, that did not occur in a significant way. We are certainly hopeful, and I think this is probably the case nationally, that it will not result in a significant increase.

I think it is also worth reflecting that a number of other jurisdictions do not have the same sort of subsidy in place for an extended period of time. My advice is that the New South Wales subsidy, for example, is due to expire in October this year and, according to my advice, at this stage there has not been any announcement of extension. Tasmania's only goes until January 2026 and Western Australia's until December 2025, for example. So South Australia's subsidy goes longer than any other jurisdiction, according to my advice.

Mr TELFER: Do you have any advice on the stage of rollout that those states that you are doing that comparative work on are at as far as the rollout amongst producers in New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You need to be more specific in terms of advice about their rollout; how do you mean?

Mr TELFER: What proportion of their flock have effectively had the eIDs rolled out to them compared to South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We are operating under a national scheme. Individual states have been able to make some of their own decisions within that, but I do not think the eID in other jurisdictions is mentioned in the budget papers.

Mr TELFER: Can you clarify for me that, come 1 July, there is an expectation that South Australian saleyards will have functioning eID infrastructure in place? It is 1 July that is the time where it is obligated; you have not extended that out any further?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is probably worth looking at what the situation has been in regard to saleyards. There was initial consultation with the Industry Advisory Committee from December 2023 on scanning dates for saleyards as well as for producers and processors, and that is all in regard to property and property movements. There was an options paper proposed for a commencement date for scanning at saleyards from 1 January 2025. So under that, it would have already been in place, and that was per the Livestock SA sheep and goat traceability steering committee transition plan.

Indeed, I am advised that Industry Advisory Committee members actually expressed quite a strong preference for the 1 January 2025 commencement, but also recognised there would be challenges and concerns expressed by some saleyards in meeting a January date. So based on industry feedback, commencement for saleyards of 1 July 2025 was adopted.

In terms of the individual saleyards, it varies of course, but whilst PIRSA is encouraging saleyards to have all of their infrastructure in place by then—and certainly, according to my understanding, some saleyards will be in that situation, but others are finding it more of a challenge. The focus for PIRSA on the transition period between 1 January 2025 and 1 January 2027 will be to educate industry on their requirements.

The main approach to noncompliance will be through education, but it is also fair to say, obviously, that is going to be on a case-by-case basis and assumes good faith attempts to become compliant in terms of scanning equipment.

Mr TELFER: Do you have advice as to how many saleyards will not have that infrastructure in place come 1 July?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: According to my advice, there are only one or two that have expressed strong concerns about being ready by 1July.

Mr TELFER: How many saleyards are there in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised there are 17 saleyards in South Australia.

Mr TELFER: Of those 17 only one or two have expressed concern that they will not have the infrastructure in place in time for the 1 July deadline?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is my advice.

Mr TELFER: What contingencies are in place for those one or two to ensure compliance with the expectations of the department?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned, if assuming there is good faith to attempt to get the scanning equipment in place, the department recommends that they work closely with saleyard agents to develop contingencies. For some that might be things like handheld readers or wands as an interim measure, but they can work closely with the agents to come to a contingency to do their best to meet that deadline.

Mr TELFER: So individual saleyards will bear the cost of those handheld scanning devices?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Handheld scanning devices are one of the pieces of equipment that are covered through the subsidies, but also I think many of the agents themselves have the handheld devices and I think that formed part of the subsidy as well, but I can double-check that.

Mr TELFER: Is there a variance of quality of data between the hard infrastructure that is going to be necessary within saleyards versus the handheld devices? You say that only one or two saleyards will be relying, potentially, on handheld devices for a period of time: is there some sort of concern to do with that data accuracy variance between those two modes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the bigger concern would be if they were not attempting to gather any of that data at all. The whole reason for moving towards electronic identification is to improve traceability in the event of an outbreak of an exotic animal disease. Diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease we are fortunate not to have in South Australia or in Australia at present, but that is a particular one of concern because it would have a huge negative impact on our industry for decades if that was to get into Australia.

The focus really is about making sure that we have the best traceability systems. As I mentioned, it also can assist with productivity but that is less of the goal here because that is an individual farm decision, but certainly we would expect an improvement in the amount of data would come from this.

Mr TELFER: Just cast your eyes, minister, to continue on that same page 55 and the highlights—there is a line, 'developed a business case in collaboration with the Department for Environment and Water to support River Murray communities' in response to the commonwealth's water recovery in the Murray Darling Basin. The agencies noted that a business case has been developed in collaboration with DEW.

The water recovery efforts in the Murray Darling Basin—and I have always taken note of your perspective when it comes to these sort of things, minister—if you do not believe that water buybacks will have a negative socioeconomic outcome for river communities, then why is the department developing a business case in collaboration with DEW to support River Murray communities in response to the water recovery?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We just today signed an agreement to receive up to $4.07 million from the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure program, Stream D of the Water Recovery Startup to develop the business case. South Australia has also signed an agreement with the Australian government to deliver the Sustainable Communities Program. This provides $20 million to mitigate any social or economic impacts of water recovery in River Murray communities. I am advised that a further $3 million will be provided to deliver the program, and that includes things like community engagement, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting.

The Department of Primary Industries and Regions led the development of a business case approach, working with the Department for Environment and Water to inform the design of a program to provide an orderly transition and a proposal for regional transition funding to mitigate identified regional impacts of the commonwealth water recovery. The business case has been drafted and is being discussed between commonwealth government and state government officials, and is currently still in draft form.

As part of the business case, a regional economic impact analysis of water recovery in the South Australian River Murray was completed, and that included a number of potential water recovery scenarios. PIRSA will continue to monitor the amount of water recovered from South Australia. I think that in terms of that emphasis on transition there will be some changes, but the overall impact is not expected to be unable to be mitigated.

Mr TELFER: Just for clarification in response to that answer, the highlights of the current financial year talk about developing a business case. Did you say that the business case is still in draft form?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, that is correct.

Mr TELFER: So should that highlight read 'developing'? When something is in a draft form, it obviously has not been finalised. There is still a lot of work that may or may not need to be done. When is this current draft business case expected to be finalised?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is subject to the discussions currently between the commonwealth and the state.

Mr TELFER: Has it been approved by cabinet?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We do not talk about cabinet processes, but I think the honourable member should be able to infer that if something is in draft that means it is still under discussion.

Mr TELFER: In your response, you spoke about the communications with the commonwealth. Has the draft business case been submitted to the commonwealth government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What I have said is that there are discussions between the commonwealth government and state government officials.

Mr TELFER: Does the commonwealth government have the draft business case?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are discussions between the commonwealth government officials and the state government officials.

Mr TELFER: So it has not been formally submitted to the commonwealth government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I reiterate my previous answer that there are discussions ongoing at the moment.

Mr TELFER: What is the current status of the business case? What timeframes can South Australian irrigation communities expect for response and delivery of service, of support?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The discussions are ongoing between the commonwealth and the state. Once those discussions are complete, then we will have a better idea of timelines.

Mr TELFER: Is there any indication of when you think discussions are going to be complete?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As soon as is feasibly possible.

Mr TELFER: Just as soon as possible?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Do you expect it to be in quarter 1 of the upcoming financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We would hope to resolve it as soon as possible.

Mr TELFER: Do you expect it to be in the first half of the next financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is a speculation.

Mr TELFER: It is a pretty simple question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Which I have already answered.

Mr TELFER: The department has—it says developed but obviously it is still developing—a business case. When is that business case going to be finalised?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I say, there are discussions ongoing between commonwealth and state officials.

Mr TELFER: Has the state missed out, or are they at risk of missing out, on funding, given the delay in movement of the development of this business case and the finite pool of commonwealth funds which is available to river communities right across the basin? Obviously, we are in potential competition with other states. Is this delay going to cost South Australians?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that $23 million has been allocated to South Australia, and those funds are not at risk.

Mr TELFER: So the business case is working off that $23 million being the allocation for South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The $23 million is what we know has been allocated to South Australia.

Mr TELFER: So that is forming the basis for the business case that is being considered at the moment, and discussions have been had with the commonwealth government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure I really understand what your question is, other than what I have already said.

Mr TELFER: Okay, we will wait and see. This is something which is absolutely front of mind for river communities. The budget papers say it has been developed, but we are still waiting for it to actually be finalised. It has not really been developed. There still has not been an agreement between the state and the commonwealth government. Are there any funds over and above that $23 million that are going to be available?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the $23 million is already committed, and future discussions with the commonwealth may or may not result in any additional funds from the commonwealth.

Mr TELFER: Is there a pool of money that may be available to South Australia over and above the $23 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that nothing further than the $23 million has been committed by the commonwealth.

Mr TELFER: As a percentage of the total funding that the commonwealth is providing across the whole nation, what is the percentage that South Australia is getting? That $23 million, how much of a percentage of the total funds is that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I imagine that is probably a better question for federal estimates, the Senate estimates, given that given that you are talking about federal funding.

Mr TELFER: You are not sure how much South Australia is getting of the total fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just answered. It is a question about the federal budget, so you would need to address that through one of your colleagues to the federal government.

Mr TELFER: What I am looking at, minister, if you speak about the potential for other funding opportunities, I am looking at that comparative data for that $23 million. What proportion of the total funding that is going to be available is that $23 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just given you an answer.

Mr TELFER: How can the committee consider whether there is opportunity for further funding if you are not letting us know what funding pool is going to be considered for further allocation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We are referring to what is in the current budget papers, and I think I have given you an answer in regard to what is in the current budget papers.

Mr TELFER: We will skip to Budget Paper 3, page 98, and speak around the Thriving Regions Fund. According to the website, there was just over $5 million expended in the enabling infrastructure grants, and generally the Thriving Communities program has been around $600,000. Could you provide the committee with a detailed breakdown of the 2023-24 Thriving Regions Fund expenditures? Obviously, there is some of that information that is public, so specifically leaning into the remaining over $9 million not detailed in public reports.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There is a large number of different programs. The Thriving Regions Fund is a $15 million per annum commitment from the Malinauskas Labor government to strengthen regional communities. It places a greater emphasis on projects that act as enablers to regional industries to grow jobs and strengthen regional communities. My advice is that since the 2022-23 financial year we have committed nearly $52.785 million from the fund to support important regional programs.

The commitment to date to the Thriving Communities fund is $3.245 million. The Thriving Regions Fund offers small grants, between $20,000 and $50,000, specifically for projects which build social wellbeing, resilience and greater community participation. It is a non-competitive grant, so applications are assessed in order of receipt. So far in 2024-25, approximately 100 applications have been received. I have already announced funding for some of those applicants, and there will be further announcements very soon.

In terms of the Enabling Infrastructure Program, the total program commitment to date is $10.073 million. This program consists of amounts from $50,000 up to $1 million, and the maximum amount can be extended to $2 million where there are exceptionally broad benefits. This program is particularly to provide support for infrastructure projects that strengthen and build strong regional communities.

In 2024-25, the Enabling Infrastructure Program has had a total of 45 expressions of interest (EOIs). It had a two-stage process, so there would be expressions of interests first of all, and then there would be an assessment made of those, and then some of those would be invited to progress to stage 2. That was particularly in response to feedback that we had on first coming to government that it can often be that a lot of time and, therefore, money is expended in terms of applying for grants when perhaps they did not have a great likelihood of success.

So this two-step program was designed in concert with Regional Development Associations to be able to streamline that so that the first stage would be simpler with less information required, and then those that were more likely to be able to proceed to funding would then be invited to submit a full stage 2 application. My advice is that in 2024-25, 20 applicants were invited to submit full applications, and I will be making announcements about those successful projects in the very near future.

Mr TELFER: Going back to 2023-24 and that additional expenditure, where was that extra money spent?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When you say 'additional expenditure', how do you mean?

Mr TELFER: Publicly there are some figures for which we can easily have a detailed breakdown of expenditures, but there is $9.3 million, by my calculations, that is not currently detailed within public reports.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not quite sure where those amounts come from.

Mr TELFER: Can you give me a detailed breakdown of the 2023-24 distributions from the Thriving Regions Fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have been provided that advice here:

Royal Flying Doctor Service Integrated Primary Health and Education Centre project, $1 million;

Tatiara District Council, Keith Industrial Estate expansion, $800,000;

Wakefield Regional Council, Celebrating Port Wakefield's Cultural Connection, $1 million;

Bundaleer Forest community, $360,000;

Naracoorte childcare centre refurbishment, $500,000;

Mypolonga Combined Sports Club, $518,000;

Kangaroo Island Community Club, $230,000; and

District Council of Elliston, short-term worker accommodation, $665,000;

That was for 2023-24. For 2024-25 we are looking at the Balaklava Community Children's Centre, $200,000, and the Australian Landscape Trust, $443,000. Then there are several others that will be announced in the very near future. I think that probably sums up the information I can provide at this stage.

Mr TELFER: So the amounts there for the 2023-24 that you provided amount to around $5 million. Is that the total moneys which have been distributed from the 2023-24 Thriving Regions Fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That would be from the Enabling Infrastructure stream.

Mr TELFER: What about from the fund overall?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there is a total of just over $17 million that has been expended in the 2023-24 financial year.

Mr TELFER: And that includes that $5 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, it does.

Mr TELFER: What makes up the remaining $12 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are a number of other parts of the Thriving Regions Fund. There is the Regional Leadership Development Program, which is over $2 million. We mentioned the Enabling Infrastructure Program. This is the Strengthening Industries Program and the Thriving Communities Program.

Mr TELFER: Can you provide some details to break down that additional 12 million? You said about $2 million. Is that $2 million all in that 2023-24 year, or is that $2 million over four years?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Regional Leadership Development Program is just over $2 million over two years.

Mr TELFER: So the remaining $11 million?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There will be a number of different aspects there. The Mid Murray Council standpipe automation is $207,000. I will just check this is the correct year. Which year are you asking about?

Mr TELFER: I am asking about 2023-24.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I beg your pardon.

Mr TELFER: I am happy to go 2024-25 next, but we are on 2023-24 currently.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: With some of the additional amounts—it is written very small, so excuse me—there is a part of the snapper recovery program, which is $2.15 million.

Mr TELFER: How much of a part?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am trying to remember the full snapper amount. It was either 6.8 or 8.8. We will just find out how much that was, but there was a proportion that was from this fund, given that obviously fishing is a significant part of regional industries. There was one portion of—I am sorry it is very small, so my apologies for not being able to see the amounts and the right figures—$100,000 for the Riverland grape and wine blueprint, the marine scalefish fee relief of $1.55 million, $250,000 for Primary Producers SA that was announced three years ago, and a number of other ones that have been publicly announced and some of their funding comes from that financial year.

Mr TELFER: So it is fair to say that this fund has basically been used to fund items in regional South Australia that are government policy. The 1.55 that you spoke about is government policy. It is really over and above anything that is competitive directly for communities like some of the smaller numbers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Strengthening Industries Program is particularly to assist industries in regional areas. It very much has a focus on retaining jobs and/or attracting jobs and so on. Further to previous public statements, it really does talk about the sorts of things it supports in primary and regional industries impacted by significant supply chain disruption. For example, the Riverland Wine Industry Blueprint is obviously very impacted by disruptions in the international markets, ditto for market access constraints, and changes to their operating environment. This program, Strengthening Industries, is very much focused on that industrial issue within regions or industries that have a significant impact on regions.

Mr TELFER: So the decision for the allocation of this fund comes back to you as minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, it does.

Mr TELFER: What advice, apart from your department, are you receiving to make decisions around the allocation from within this fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When you say 'apart from my department', obviously my department engages with many organisations, whether that is industry bodies or whether it is the Department of Treasury and Finance. They are able to provide advice on whether there are supply chain disruptions and whether there are market access constraints and so on. They would at times liaise with the department of industry and trade and with industry bodies and sometimes directly with business owners. For example, if I am trying to find whether there was one particular industry that was particularly impacted by something, PIRSA has various personnel who interact with industry—they have an industry section within PIRSA—and they would draw on that intelligence, utilising all the different advice that might be available.

Mr TELFER: Is there a formal structure or process within the department to escalate the consideration of items by you as the minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is on a case-by-case basis. Someone who wants to apply to the Strengthening Industries Program can contact PIRSA's regional advisers in the first instance. Sometimes they may then, either after that or separate to that, apply directly to me. I will seek advice from the department, in the various ways that I have just outlined, prior to making a decision.

Mr TELFER: Have you received feedback from within your department about that process? Is there clarity around how that process can be escalated for consideration?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have not received any feedback that it is difficult.

Mr TELFER: What about from communities? Both communities and industry are trying to have some sort of clarity and transparency around how this process is escalated. Have you received any feedback as to this fund in particular—how it is managed, not just now but into the future?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, not in my recollection.

Mr TELFER: The application assessment for the Enabling Infrastructure Program, according to the website, considers alignment with state and regional plans and priorities and the benefit of the project to the region. Can you outline what the state's plans and priorities are in relation to these projects? Once again, is that alignment purely based on the judgement of you as the minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the honourable member is getting a little confused between the two programs. The Strengthening Industries Program is what we have just outlined, but the question that he has just asked is in regard to the Enabling Infrastructure Program. I am not trying to be critical; I just want to make sure that there is clarity for the honourable member.

Mr TELFER: Correct.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In terms of the Enabling Infrastructure Program, the state and regional policies and plans and so on include the sorts of economic statements that governments make from time to time. Also, as I outlined very briefly earlier, this program has two stages of application: the first is an expression of interest that seeks some basic information and outlines, and then that is provided to the regional development associations to provide feedback.

They will also provide feedback on whether it aligns with their RDA regional plans, with the goal being to make sure that the sorts of things that are funded through the EIP are those areas that will have, essentially, the best bang for buck, the best outcomes, taking to account the fact that obviously there are state plans and priorities but also that regions have put a lot of work on the ground into developing their own regional plans. They then provide recommendations back to the department, which come to me, and I then make decisions around approvals.

Mr TELFER: So for clarification—and I have been scribbling down numbers as we go along and adding them up, trying to work out how much information you have actually provided to us—as far as the Thriving Regions Fund goes, can you provide for me a line-by-line breakdown for both the 2023-24 and the 2024-25 budget? I am happy for you to take it on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sure. We will take that on notice.

Mr TELFER: I would certainly appreciate that because there is still a shortfall from the explanation that you have you have given to me so far, so I would certainly appreciate it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I might just make a comment more broadly about the Thriving Regions Fund, and the same was certainly the case when it was the regional development fund previously.

Mr TELFER: I have a couple of questions around cost recovery that I would appreciate getting to.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Also, what was expended in a year will vary because, for example, a project might have been approved three years ago with the expectation that it would be completed within two years, and then due to circumstances, supply chain issues, whatever it might be, an individual proponent might ask for an extension of another six months or 12 months, which means that then that amount does not get expended, but it moves into the following year.

There are many instances of that occurring and, indeed, I stand to be corrected but I think there may even still be some from the Regional Growth Fund which, for various reasons, are still having amounts paid out. I recall when I was in opposition, you look at it and $15 million does not seem to actually align, but that is some of the explanation around that.

Mr TELFER: I would certainly appreciate that line by line if possible. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, across pages 56 and 57, looking at fisheries stuff, the Cost Recovery Implementation Committee. When is the cost-recovery review implementation road map expected to be publicly released?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So just a little bit of background, the Cost Recovery Implementation Committee (CRIC) was formed with members from PIRSA and Seafood Industry South Australia to implement the government endorsed recommendations from the independent Cost Recovery Review Panel. The independent chair of the CRIC is contracted through PIRSA. Back in March 2022, we announced as one of our election commitments to undertake an independent cost-recovery review of the current seafood sector, and that was both fisheries and aquaculture, in terms of the cost-recovery policy and model, to ensure that it is sustainable and appropriate.

The Cost Recovery Review Panel was established and commenced their review following the announcement of member appointments on 15 December 2022. In February 2024, the government released the independent Cost Recovery Review Panel's reports into cost recovery for our state's commercial fisheries and aquaculture sectors and the government response to the recommendations in these reports.

The government's response to the independent Cost Recovery Review Panel's recommendations is publicly available, and it outlines our detailed consideration to each recommendation and our ongoing commitment to the sector. Building on the foundation laid by that panel's reports, PIRSA, as I mentioned, is collaborating with Seafood Industry South Australia (SISA) as members on the Cost Recovery Implementation Committee. Its purpose is to oversee the strategic implementation of the recommended cost-recovery measures, ensuring they align with best practises and meet the sector's and government's needs.

Mr TELFER: When is that implementation road map expected to be released?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There has been some discussion around trying to understand what it is that the member is referring to in terms of the road map. The chair reports from the CRIC are available on the PIRSA website. There are various other documents that possibly the honourable member is confused with such as the marine scalefishery blueprint and those sorts of things. I am just not quite sure what it is that the honourable member is asking for, but I would refer him to the website to outline the steps that are being conducted.

Mr TELFER: When are the final CRIC reports going to be released publicly?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: CRIC reports of what?

Mr TELFER: The committee, the recommendations. This is about the implementation of the cost-recovery review.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is still ongoing, I guess is the answer, if I am understanding the honourable member's question correctly. That is still ongoing. They have not resolved that as yet so, obviously, it cannot be printed until it has been resolved.

Mr TELFER: What level of funding has been allocated to support the implementation of the cost-recovery review, including stakeholder engagement, system changes and program delivery?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Funding of $412,126, excluding GST, is granted to SISA to undertake the benchmarking activities of PIRSA's science and compliance programs which is a crucial recommendation that this state government embraced. Probably two of the very significant recommendations from the report that I referred to earlier, the panel's recommendations, were around benchmarking of both science and compliance.

The cost-recovery process that happens currently each year is that obviously there are base levels of service that PIRSA provides, and the discussions and I guess questions have been around whether the costing of those is in line with current expectations. A big part of the work will be independent consultants undertaking those benchmarking activities.

SISA and industry have indicated that they are very happy with the process so far. They were not concerned that the process would extend beyond the current cost-recovery setting process because this is benchmarking that will potentially have an implication for all future cost-recovery matters going forward for many years. The benchmarking is important and my understanding is that the timing around that was due to the specialists who needed to be involved and their availability.

Mr TELFER: When can industry expect to see changes? How long will this benchmarking take?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the benchmarking is expected to be completed by the end of this year, and that would enable it to feed into the cost-recovery discussions that happen for the following financial year.

Mr TELFER: What measures are in place to ensure transparency and accountability through the implementation process, particularly the—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry, the implementation of what?

Mr TELFER: The cost recovery, particularly around fee structures and service standards. When the rubber hits the road for industry and they are being told that this is the expectation of the contribution that is going to be made, what measures around transparency and communications are in place to ensure that I, as the local member for a lot of it, but certainly as opposition, stop hearing that there is ambiguity and murkiness when it comes to how much industry are paying?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are a couple of things to respond to there. First of all, in terms of the benchmarking, we have outlined that and that the chair's reports are available on the PIRSA website—the minutes are on the PIRSA website, perhaps, is the correct way to put it. One of the other recommendations from the panel was that there be a consolidated statement. My understanding is that has already been implemented for this year.

Perhaps I may be telling the honourable member information that he already knows, but what has happened for cost recovery is that there are discussions that are undertaken—for the majority of them, it is every year—where PIRSA outlines the services that it will be providing. That will vary, sometimes from year to year, sometimes based on requests from industry. For example, a fishery might say, 'We would like additional monitoring of X because we have some concerns,' and they would understand that they were going to be paying for that as part of the cost-recovery process.

The 'single cost-recovery implementation statement' was the wording I was trying to find, which is for both fisheries and aquaculture, shows transparently the fees raised and how it is spent. That consolidated implementation statement was one of the outcomes from the review that I referred to. Once the benchmarking has been completed, as we have outlined already, towards the end of this year, then that can be provided to industry and will inform further discussions going forward.

Mr TELFER: In regard to what you are saying—the information that is publicly available, etc.—I am curious as to why the minutes from the previous meeting of the group from 13 May 2025 have not been published yet on the PIRSA website.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will have to take that on notice. We do not know the answer to that question.

Mr TELFER: Yes, thank you; if you could get the secretary of the committee to get it uploaded ASAP. Back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 55, looking at some of those initiatives—the standpipe upgrades. Of the $2½ million announced for regional standpipe upgrades, how much has been spent to date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will get some further advice, but my recollection is that that program was developed and opened up for councils to apply to. The applications from councils need to come in. They need to prepare them and then have them assessed. My expectation—I will wait to be corrected by my advisers if I am incorrect—is that process of application and assessment would not yet be complete.

Mr TELFER: So none of that money has hit the market yet. It is still going through the process?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Councils have not yet fully applied, is my understanding. I have just been updated: a number of councils have expressed their interest but have not put in their formal applications at this stage.

Mr TELFER: How many formal applications have been received?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just said that none of them have put in formal applications at this stage. They have expressed an interest, but they have not submitted their formal applications at this stage.

Mr TELFER: How many councils have expressed an interest in funding under the standpipe upgrades?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will have to take that on notice. I am not sure that it is a formal expression of interest. I think it would be discussions with the drought support team.

Mr TELFER: So there have not been any decisions made about locations for allocation for this standpipe?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The upgrades to standpipes would be for standpipes that are already in existence. For example, separate to this, prior to the announcement of the second tranche of drought support, the Mid Murray Council, through the Strengthening Industries Program, made an application for an upgrade to their standpipes. That includes for them automation of the standpipes, which means that it is easier for residents to access and there would be automated payment, whereas that contrasts with the current situation where people need to get a key to access them. They need to get that, I believe, from the council office in business hours, and so on.

That was funded through the Thriving Regions Fund, Strengthening Industries, but it did highlight the potential for other councils to also need funding for similar upgrades. The standpipes would be existing standpipe locations that councils already have, and if they see a benefit and need in terms of upgrading them, that is where they can apply to this fund.

Mr TELFER: What communications have been made to councils? This is the first time that I am becoming aware of an expression-of-interest process and then an application process. How is that being communicated to councils and their local communities when it comes to regional standpipe upgrades?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There was a recent announcement in the government support package, where it was extended to $73 million. I know there has also been a media release saying that the applications were open, and I am advised that all regional councils have been sent the guidelines.

Mr TELFER: Does the minister know how many standpipes are currently non-operational or failing to meet potable water standards?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that PIRSA's understanding is that the issue was not around the quality of water, it is around the cost of managing them, which can be quite difficult for a number of regional councils. In terms of whether they are meeting the needs of their communities, that will depend on the council and the standpipe—we would not have direct information on that. PIRSA did contact all regional councils during the development phase of this to get an understanding from them, but that is based on the information that was provided by the councils at that time.

Mr TELFER: Keeping an eye on the time—and I know how strict the Chair is with this stuff—Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 59 states:

Develop a State Biosecurity Strategy to protect and support the state's economy, environment, amenity and public health by preventing and reducing pest and disease impacts, maintaining food safety and ensuring responsible agricultural chemical use.

Given that this is a target for 2025-26 to develop a biosecurity strategy, does that mean we do not currently have an existing state biosecurity strategy in place?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there are currently multiple policies in regard to biosecurity, whether that is relating to plants, pests, animal diseases and so on. We also have a number of documents in regard to our compliance with national protocols and national plans. This has been the situation for a long time, under both this government and previous governments, but feedback from industry is that there would be benefit to having a consolidated biosecurity strategy.

I think it is fair to say that as biosecurity threats and risks increase—as they do, it seems, almost on a monthly basis, with more international travel and with more international trade—the importance of biosecurity becomes greater and greater, so in response to that feedback the development of a strategy will proceed. It will guide South Australia's biosecurity focus over a five-year period, aligning with the Biosecurity Act, national strategies and projects, including considerations for alignment with the South Australian Economic Statement.

So far, the development of the strategy has included a series of three workshops, one held in May and attended by PIRSA biosecurity senior leaders, which provided an opportunity for leaders to participate in a strategic vision session, developing a program logic model and identifying opportunities that will support the development of the strategy.

A further workshop was held later in May to ensure that there were further perspectives from PIRSA more broadly. Then an industry session was held, which was focused, I think, on a couple of things in the biosecurity system, first of all the importance of industry's role but in terms of supporting the enactment of the Biosecurity Act. That was attended by diverse industry participants to ensure a broad range of views was captured.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I think it is really important that there is widespread industry participation in the development of a biosecurity strategy, because industries are both the recipients of benefits and also most at risk. It is fair to say that biosecurity is not just industry's responsibility. It is a responsibility of the community and of government and of industry. Indeed, in the Biosecurity Act which recently passed parliament that general biosecurity duty was explicit.

Involved in the workshop we have had participants from Grain Producers SA, Pork SA, Landscape Boards SA, the Horticultural Coalition, Primary Producers SA, Livestock SA, the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, Vinehealth Australia and the South Australian Forest Products Association We will continue to engage with industry for all of the reasons that I have outlined.

Mr TELFER: Considering we started five minutes late, can I just have one more on that, Chair?

The CHAIR: Okay, I will be generous and give you one more question. Can the minister keep the answer short.

Mr TELFER: You referred to, in the development of that strategy, multiple policies that are already in place. As a part of the development of the strategy, have you considered—and if not, why not—an independent review of those policies that are in place? Obviously, it has been a pretty challenging time as far as biosecurity goes. I have asked a few questions on that. Would now be the time to do an independent review on the existing policies that are informing the development of that biosecurity strategy? If not, why not? Why has that not been the position?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the honourable member refers to a good point, in that there have been number of biosecurity issues. Particularly where those are national issues, there is always a review of the response, and that will feed into development. Essentially, I do not think we can afford to wait; we cannot stop and have a review of every biosecurity policy, because all of them are evolving in many ways because of the current level of threat and risk that we have in Australia. I am confident that they are constantly under review.

I will just see whether my CEO has anything to add. Just to add to that, the commonwealth has recently developed a National Biosecurity Strategy, and we will obviously need to ensure that South Australia's strategy works within that.

The CHAIR: With that answer and the allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions complete. We will move right along to the portfolio of ForestrySA.

Departmental Advisers:

Prof. M. Doroudi, Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr T. Ryan, Chief Executive, ForestrySA, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Mr R. Robinson, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Ms A. Barclay, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Ms M. Spencer, Chief of Staff, Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The CHAIR: For the portfolio of ForestrySA, the minister appearing is the Minister for Forest Industries. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination and call on the minister to make a statement and introduce any new advisers.

Mr TELFER: Sir, as the departments are changing over perhaps we could do the omnibus questions?

The CHAIR: Yes, if you want to do it now.

Mr PEDERICK: I will run with the omnibus questions:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2024 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 2024 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 2024?

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 2024, 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 2025-26 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 2025, 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 2025-26 and each year of the forward estimates, and what is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

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

(a) What was the actual FTE count at June 2025 and what is the projected actual FTE account for the end of each year of the forward estimates?

(b) What is the budgeted total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

(c) 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 2025-26 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 2025-26 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 2025-26?

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 2024 and budgeted expenditure for 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

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

(e) 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:

(a) Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2025-26? Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 5 June 2025 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today?

(b) Are you expecting any reallocations across your agencies' budget lines during 2025-26; if so, what is the nature of the reallocation?

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

(a) What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agencies in 2025-26?

(b) What percentage of total procurement spend for your agencies does this represent?

(c) How does this compare to last year?

17. 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?

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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 Hammond. You did fall well short of breaking the record for the reading out of the omnibus questions. It is still held by the former member for Mount Gambier, Rory McEwen, who I understand read it out in a blistering pace of two minutes for that whole series of questions. Minister, you can introduce your new advisers, and if you wish to make a statement, go ahead.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I know the opposition always has difficulty filling the hour with questions on forestry, so I am helping them out by giving an opening statement. I reintroduce Professor Mehdi Doroudi, Chief Executive of PIRSA, and also introduce Mr Tim Ryan, Chief Executive Officer of ForestrySA. On my far left is Mr Rob Robinson, Acting Executive Director of PIRSA. Behind me is my Chief of Staff, Ms Meagan Spencer, and Ms Ann Barclay, Director, Chief Executive Office, PIRSA.

The government's industries in forestry are led by both ForestrySA and the Department of Primary Industries and Regions. I will state that I am happy to have questions in this section both in regard to ForestrySA and PIRSA; there is no necessity to separate them out. The South Australian Forestry Corporation, trading as ForestrySA, is a statutory authority with commercial and regional social and economic responsibilities, which include management of the Mount Lofty Ranges Forest Estate, with more than 10,000 hectares of commercial pine plantation area and the delivery of specified non-commercial services on behalf of government.

The sustainable harvest of ForestrySA's estate continues to support the South Australian wood processing industry with sawmill customers and supply chain businesses in the Mount Lofty Ranges adding value to South Australia's regional economies. Critical services provided by ForestrySA include the provision of community fire protection beyond that required for the protection of their commercial plantations.

Although the fire danger season was relatively benign, ForestrySA's capabilities in plantation, forest and bushland fire protection make a valued contribution to the firefighting capability in the communities where they operate. Sustainability is the cornerstone of all ForestrySA's future initiatives. Evolving areas include opportunities to enhance wood fibre utilisation.

PIRSA is responsible for providing policy advice and the implementation of the government's initiatives to develop the state's forest and wood products industry. South Australia's forest and wood products sector is significant to the state's economy, with the most recent official data showing a contribution of around $1.57 billion and delivering 6,500 jobs directly. Additional figures from industry indicate that the direct and indirect figures for jobs is more likely between 18,000 and 21,000 because that includes the manufacturing side, harvest and haulage, and so on. The sector plays an important role in our regional communities and, as a result, the state government is working closely with industry on a number of initiatives to ensure the sector's growth well into the future.

Significant progress has been made in the establishment of the new Forestry Centre of Excellence, the flagship development for our forest industry in the South-East and a key election commitment for the Malinauskas government having committed more than $21 million to support the future prosperity of the sector of which $16 million is for the centre.

I was proud to attend the ground breaking for the new Forestry Centre of Excellence building in April to mark the commencement of work for the permanent purpose-built facility at Mount Gambier's Research, Education and Training Precinct. I was also pleased to report that Professor Jeff Morrell commenced in February as the director of the centre. He is globally renowned for his distinguished career in wood durability and was selected following an international search.

We have also delivered on our election commitment to upgrade fire towers in the Limestone Coast, with the final tower at Penola becoming operational in time for last summer's bushfire season. This is the final deliverable of a partnership between the state government and the forest industry, which has seen an investment of almost $5 million in landscape-level fire detection. This will help protect the forest estate and the many jobs it supports and importantly protect the community and the landscape in the South-East.

The staffed Penola tower complements the eight new AI-powered bushfire detection and monitoring cameras located at Comaum, Mount Benson, The Bluff, Furner, Mount Burr, Carpenter Rocks, Lucindale South and Cave Range, installed to work in conjunction with the upgraded fire tower network. Powered by Pano AI, the monitoring system is Australia's first fully integrated bushfire detection platform, utilising ultra-HD 360-degree panoramic cameras and aimed at improving the early detection of fires.

Giant pine scale is continuing to cause concern in Adelaide's north-east, with ForestrySA and PIRSA working closely with SA Water and the Department for Environment and Water, as well as local government and the forest industry, to continue to manage the situation. Projects as part of the South Australian Wood Fibre and Timber Industry Master Plan are continuing and we have been very pleased to work closely with industry around many of those projects.

We know that investing in the future of primary industries is vital to grow regional economies and regional communities and forestry is no exception. That is also why we continue to invest and mark the importance of this industry. For example, this year marks the 150^th anniversary of the state's forest and timber industries and we can reflect on the globally significant achievements and success of our South Australian sector. The South Australian government is ambitious for the future prosperity and growth of the state's forest and timber industries, and that ambition has been backed by delivery of its key election commitments and investments. I look forward to seeing what the future brings for this important industry.

Mr TELFER: I do not know if you have behind there the record on opening statements or not, I will have to check with you later, sir.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Tim Whetstone, 15 minutes.

Mr TELFER: I think with the cumulative effect, we will have to review it, sir.

The CHAIR: When you were in government, there were a number of very long opening statements.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And he wanted separate ones from ForestrySA and forestry within PIRSA.

Mr TELFER: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, on page 60. That is specifically about Sub-program 1.5. There is a table there on page 60 that has an income of the 2023-24 actual of $860,000 and then nothing to follow. Can the minister give me an explanation as to why? What was the source and the purpose of that $860,000 income in 2023-24?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The $860,000 was a payment from ForestrySA to PIRSA to further support the Bundaleer Forest and the Mid North Forests Future Strategy. The government has completed the Mid North Forests Future Strategy, which has delivered a positive outcome for the regional stakeholders involved.

Honourable members may recall the major bushfires about a decade ago that destroyed much of Bundaleer and Wirrabara Forests, prompting the government to pursue a process to secure a sustainable future. All lands are now being managed for new and expanded enterprises, including forestry, agriculture, conservation and recreation management.

The Bundaleer Forest Community Areas Association has worked hard to attract grants from the South Australian and local governments and these combined—I must say with very significant volunteer efforts—have led to the construction of a purpose-built function centre, Maple & Pine, and a nature play facility. I was fortunate to visit the Bundaleer forests and be shown around by the volunteers, probably going back maybe 2½ years or maybe a little bit more, and it was very impressive to see what they had been able to put together there through multiple grants.

The recent support from this government includes $860,000 for the Bundaleer Picnic Ground essential works grant. That, together with other grants, has enabled the following works to be undertaken in the forest picnic ground community precinct, including:

accessible public toilets;

a water supply system for the public toilets and fire tanks;

boundary and other fencing;

fire track creek crossing repair;

arboreal assessment and treatment;

a reticulation system, solar panel, pump and battery; and

a storage shed for fire equipment, tools and chemicals.

The works are crucial to ensuring the Bundaleer Picnic Ground community area remains safely open to the public for walks, forest kindy, forest school and tourism development. The Mid North Forests Future Strategy back in 2015 identified alternative land management options, including considerations for social and environmental values. This was one portion of ensuring that the Bundaleer Forest area remains open safely to the public into the future.

Mr TELFER: Forest kindy sounds fascinating.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It actually is. I was very pleased to be able to see that when I was there. The children come from local kindergartens and are introduced to the forest.

Mr TELFER: Released into the forest!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Also, of course, in that area are some of the original plantings for forestry in South Australia. There is a diversity of different plantings there. We are of course used to Tasmanian blue gum and radiata pine being the main two species that we have continued in South Australia, but back in 1875 there were a number of experimental plantings.

The Premier and I were very pleased to be at a recent event in Mount Gambier that marked 150 years of sustainable plantation forestry in South Australia. The Premier referred to the work that was done by Goyder in establishing Goyder's line and the impacts on forestry. If we look at things like the development of radiata pine, a pine forest in the Bundaleer area would probably take roughly 60 years to come to fruition and be able to be harvested, whereas the South-East is of course far more suited: it is a roughly 30-year rotation.

The work that has been done since the beginnings of plantation forestry in South Australia in the Mid North has been absolutely crucial, and forest kindy will encourage young children to continue to be interested in that, as well as in many other aspects of forestry and the natural environment.

Mr TELFER: That was not a question, that is for sure.

The CHAIR: Next question.

Mr TELFER: Minister, can you clarify that the funding from ForestrySA, the $860,000, was the total amount provided to the Bundaleer Forest community program, or was there a separate grant under PIRSA's Enabling Infrastructure Program?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes. There was a separate $360,000 under the Enabling Infrastructure Program, and I outlined the very many parts of the project in my earlier answer.

Mr TELFER: So the total for that is about $1.2 million for the—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just want to check your—

Mr TELFER: Yes, this was in my head; I did not write it down.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is $1.220 million.

Mr TELFER: That was the total amount. Thank you very much. Going on from that, on page 60 there is some explanation as to significant movements, further down the page. I refer to the expenses of $6.5 million in 2023-24 increasing to $7.2 million under what was estimated will come in 2024-25 and then dropping sharply to just $3.1 million in the current budget. Can you please expand on the explanations around the movement of those expenses?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the net cost of the sub-program shows a decrease of $4.1 million in 2025-26 that is primarily due to a one-off expenditure in 2024-25 for the Forestry Centre of Excellence program, which is $2.6 million; a one-off expenditure in 2024-25 for the Bundaleer Forest Reserve program, which is $0.9 million; and the profiling of expenditure for the Forest Industries Domestic Manufacturing and Infrastructure Masterplan, which is $0.7 million.

Mr TELFER: So of the expenses of $7.227 million, you said $2.6 million as a total for the Forestry Centre of Excellence; is that right?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the expenses, which show a decrease of $4.1 million in 2025-26, are primarily due to the one-off expenditure of $2.6 million for the Forestry Centre for Excellence; the $0.9 million for Bundaleer Forest Reserve program; and what I just outlined, the $0.7 million in terms of profiling of expenditure for the master plan.

Mr TELFER: So of those expenses, the $7.2 million, how much of that was allocated to the rebuild of the fire towers initiative and the forest products master plan? You spoke about the $2.6 million for the Forestry Centre of Excellence. How about those other two projects?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry, the two being the fire towers, did you say?

Mr TELFER: The rebuild of the fire towers initiative and the forest products master plan.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the fire towers were in the previous budget, so that is not reflected in the amounts that the honourable member is referring to here. I also already outlined the $0.7 million in regard to the master plan.

Mr TELFER: You referred to the centre for excellence and I think the scheduled date of 26 January. Are you confident that the centre will be delivered on time and within budget?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned in my opening statement, I was at the ground break of the centre for excellence and the advice that I have so far is that it will be complete in early 2026. I do not think there is anything further to be concerned about around that. Obviously, having said that, weather events and so on can occur, but the hope and expectation, all other things being equal, is that it will be completed at that time. In terms of the establishment, we have committed $16 million in total and that includes both the build as well as the long-term commitment to the actual research capability.

Mr TELFER: For clarification on the 2024-25 estimated result, the $7.2 million, you said that there is no allocation for the rebuild of the fire towers initiative and that was in previous years. What made up the total of the $7.2 million then? Obviously the centre for excellence is $2.6 million, but what was the breakdown of that expenditure of the $7.2 million in the 2024-25 estimated result?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You are talking about the total expenditure. We have talked about the variances, but you want to know the base programs or the total expenditure of the $7.2 million?

Mr TELFER: The total, yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think in terms of total expenditure we will probably need to take that on notice because my understanding is that would cover a wide variety of expenses which we would not necessarily have here. What we have outlined are the variances.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, I appreciate you taking that on notice. The line there on that same page around FTEs, obviously there is no comparative to the rest of the department, it is not a big allocation, but from 2023-24 of eight FTEs it decreased down to 6.6. What roles or functions were reduced or restructured to account for this drop?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there have not been any reductions in positions within the amount that has been referred to. It refers to things such as long service leave. For example, when you have a small team—as clearly we do here with six, seven, eight people—something such as long service leave can appear to have a significant impact, but my advice is there has not been any removal of positions.

Mr TELFER: So conflation in the 2023-24, and the 6.7, 6.6 is about the normal operating?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on, there is a highlight in 2024-25 at the top of page 60, 'Supported the expanded Forest Industries Advisory Council, including progress on its workplan.' Can the minister outline the purpose of the expanded Forest Industries Advisory Council and the rationale behind its expansion?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, yes, I can. The government supported and expanded the role of the Forest Industries Advisory Council of South Australia (FIACSA) ensuring it continues to reflect the contemporary needs of industry. We expanded it so that it had a wide scope in terms of its involvement with various stakeholders within industry. The council is assisting the government to deliver initiatives including providing advice on the priority projects to be funded under the South Australian Wood Fibre and Timber Industry Master Plan.

I can advise that, as at the time of writing this brief dated 6 June, the membership was Tammy Auld, from the South Australian Forest Products Association, who was co-chair with Michelle Ingley-Smith from the skills and training sector; Laurie Hind, Green Triangle Forest Industries Hub; Wendy Fennell, Green Triangle Forest Contractors Group; Peter Badenoch, South Australian Timber Processors Association; Alicia Langfield, the National Timber and Hardware Association; Travis Lawson from the forestry union; Cathy Bell representing employees in the forest industry; Vanessa McLaughlin from the Department of Treasury and Finance; Dan Jordan from the Department for Environment and Water; Andrew Dunbar from the Department of State Development; Andrew Excell, Department for Infrastructure and Transport; and Jo Collins from the Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

The expanded council comprises representatives from government agencies, industry associations and other stakeholders, particularly the workforce appointed for their skills, expertise and understanding of forestry issues, and the ability to consider the long-term interests of the industry.

Mr TELFER: With regard to the expansion of that council, what did it expand from and to? What additional expertise has been added to the council upon its expansion?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will double-check my comments, but I will be operating from memory—it included the skills and training sector, which, if I recall correctly, under the previous government, FIACSA did not, and also representatives of the workforce. If I am incorrect on that from my memory, I will certainly correct the record. I have also been reminded that expanded the government agencies. Under the prior iteration of FIACSA, it was just PIRSA, but as I outlined, the members of FIACSA include the other departments that also have a significant impact on the forest industries, including DEW, the Department of State Development, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr TELFER: Do the members receive an allowance or sitting fee for being a member of FIACSA?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They are reimbursed for their travel to meetings, if they claim it.

Mr TELFER: So there is no sitting fee over and above reimbursement for travel?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are no sitting fees; that is correct.

Mr TELFER: What funding or resourcing is being allocated to support the operations of FIACSA in 2025-26?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They are funded from within existing PIRSA resources. PIRSA provides a secretariat. We are always very pleased to have Mr Rob Robinson, who joins us here today as well, as a key part of FIACSA in terms of the management of that, and then there is a second staff member who assists with distribution of minutes and papers and so on.

Mr TELFER: What is the total allocation of resourcing that is put to FIACSA annually?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is not a separate allocation as such; there is an allocation for industry engagement across PIRSA, and therefore it would come from there.

Mr TELFER: The current structure of the council is scheduled to operate until 30 June 2026, with a review of the council and its terms of reference at that point. What specific performance metrics or evaluation criteria will be used to assess its effectiveness?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that so far the very strong focus has been on the master plan—first of all, the development of the master plan, but then, secondly, the implementation of various projects within that master plan. That master plan, of course, will be constantly reviewed at appropriate points. As the master plan projects are fulfilled, then the focus may change.

Having said that, it is not to say that has been the sole agenda item of FIACSA, but FIACSA itself raises issues that it wants to be considered. I have certainly been very pleased with the engagement, particularly in terms of the long-term future of the forest industry. The master plan looks both at some short-term matters but also some of the longer term matters; for example, things around decarbonisation of the transport task, as just one example.

Mr TELFER: My understanding is the operations of FIACSA, the current structure, the expanded structure, is due for review come June 2026; is that right?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We can take that on notice and come back to you, but it is also fair to say that FIACSA itself can suggest changes and so on at anytime. Simply that there should be a review, if, indeed, that is in the terms of reference of June or July next year, as the member has indicated, does not prevent ongoing reviews or changes as recommended or brought up by either the membership or indeed it could be from me.

Mr TELFER: I am just curious, in assessing the performance of the expanded structure, what metrics will be used to make recommendations to you as minister to either alter or accept ongoing the changes that are made? How will you be assessing the viability or the success of the expanded council structure?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Essentially, there will be a number of factors: first, the quality of advice that I am receiving as minister. I can certainly place on the record that that quality has been very high to date and, second, the continued support of industry. If industry is not finding that their involvement is useful or adding value, I am sure they would withdraw from involvement and that would be another way of assessing it. FIACSA has met regularly, they are forward thinking and they are taking in perspectives from across the industry and various stakeholders within the industry. It is a very valuable council providing quality advice to me as minister.

Mr TELFER: Will the formal review be internal within the department or external? It says on the website that there will be a review of the arrangements.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I cannot envisage that we would need an external review. I could be convinced if necessary, but I really cannot see what the value of that would be. It is just good practice that when a council, an advisory committee or something similar to that is established, it obviously makes sense to keep that constantly in mind. That will occur but, as I said, that does not. preclude us from continuous review or improvement during the term of the council either.

Mr TELFER: Yes.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Program 4, Portfolio Forest Industry Statement on page 59. Minister, this is a topic very close to my heart and I was very keen to hear you talk about the involvement of children in the forestry sector earlier in your address. I was particularly interested in the Nature Play events that have been held. Can you tell us about the ForestrySA hosted Nature Play event that is held every year at beautiful Kuitpo Forest?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question, and I think it is probably a question that a lot of people will be very interested to hear the answer to. ForestrySA forests provide scenic and safe open spaces for a variety of events and activities. The Nature Play Forest Festival is one of the great events hosted by ForestrySA in the beautiful Kuitpo Forest, and 2025 will be Nature Play's eighth year, emphasising its popularity with the local community.

Nature Play attracts around 3,000 visitors over two days every year, where the South Australian community can engage with nature in creative, sustainable and meaningful ways. It provides an opportunity to slow down, to wander with friends, while children let the curiosity take them on a meandering path of wonder, joy and creativity.

Nature-based activities for all ages, not just children, are available throughout the day, but children will be particularly excited by some of the specifics. They include things like nature crown and mask making, wall hanging, wand making and cubby building, Aboriginal message stone painting and more. The local Kaurna and Narungga elders come to share their knowledge about Aboriginal culture as well as part of this important event.

The event enhances community knowledge and understanding of ecological concepts, Aboriginal cultures, sustainability, nature's intrinsic values and respect for all living things. ForestrySA sponsors the event, as well as providing on-ground staff to help coordinate the event and educate about sustainable forestry practices, which are what South Australian forest industries are all about. Nature Play is an excellent example of government and industry working together to deliver economic and highly effective community programs. Visitors who attend come from far and wide, with 25 per cent coming from outside the Adelaide Hills tourism region.

The CHAIR: Good to see the kids logging in. Over to you, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Can I just clarify a few final things on the advisory council, minister? You spoke a bit about the quality advice that you have been receiving already. Has it been formal advice received by you as minister from the council—advice, reports or recommendations? If so, will they be made public?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am pleased to be able to advise the honourable member that I have been involved, I think, in every FIACSA meeting, so clearly I am able to benefit from the advice that I received whilst actually attending the meetings, but also after each meeting a communiqué is issued which is, I am advised, published on the PIRSA website, so there is clear information about what has been discussed and covered. More broadly if there are minutes, as in a minute, coming to me from the department, it of course will often incorporate advice that has been received through the membership of the FIACSA.

Mr TELFER: So have there been any formal recommendations or advice? In the discussion in the council that you can be privy to, have there been any formal resolutions from the council, recommendations or advice made to you as minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have received formal advice on recommendations around projects that could be funded through the master plan.

Mr TELFER: Will that advice be made public?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is not usual to make a minute to a minister public. Certainly, the opposition is welcome to FOI, if they so wish.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I appreciate your permission.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You are welcome. I always like to assist.

Mr TELFER: What role, if any, does the council play in overseeing or advising on some of those key initiatives spoken about within the papers, such as the Forestry Centre of Excellence or the rebuild of the fire towers? What role does the council play in those major projects in particular?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The fire towers were not part of the master plan, and therefore the advice could be, I guess, more informal. Noting who I outlined is part of FIACSA, you can see that it covers all of the stakeholders, really, in terms of representation, whether that is contractors, whether it is harvest and haulage, whether it is tree growing, forest growing, so on and so forth.

They are certainly able to raise those matters at meetings of FIACSA, and from my recollection both of those have been raised at FIACSA meetings that I have been part of. Clearly, things like the fire towers have widespread interest, because they protect not only the forestry assets but also our local communities and other industries. That is something that has been most welcomed by those who are on FIACSA, as well as, no doubt, elsewhere.

Mr TELFER: I am interested in how smaller forestry operators are being represented on the council and what mechanisms allow or enable the assurance that their views are appropriately heard and listened to.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When you say smaller forestry operators, what sectors within the industry are you referring to?

Mr TELFER: Across the sector, the small businesses rather than the big overall and the bigger operators; the smaller guys within the industry, in harvesting, processing and the whole process.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Green Triangle forest contractors group that is representative of contractors—so that includes harvest and haulage—and also the South Australian Timber Processors Association represent small processors. If there are any specific concerns that the honourable member has, I am certainly happy to provide additional information.

Mr TELFER: I am interested, again, in an understanding of the consultation processes that the council use to engage with industry and community stakeholders outside its membership. You rely on those groups you spoke about to ensure that they have that engagement with their members and they will pass that message on to council in deliberations that council have, rather than council directly engaging with some of the small business cohort that is represented?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Those who are on there are not just representative; several of them are small businesses themselves, according to my understanding. I think the expanded FIACSA takes in a much broader cross section than the previous FIACSA, and I certainly have not heard any concerns from any businesses, certainly not directly, and I am not aware of any feedback that has been provided to PIRSA that it is considered anything other than very representative.

Mr TELFER: On page 59, as part of the objectives there is the statement, 'Works closely with industry and the community to drive sector and regional growth which has a long term and sustainable future.' I am interested if the minister is intending to address the recommendations of the parliamentary select committee in their report on Matters Relating to the Timber Industry in the Limestone Coast and Other Regions of South Australia. Are you going to address those recommendations; if so, when?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As Minister for Forest Industries, I certainly welcomed the report and I thank the committee for its work and efforts over the last few years. It is fair to say that our government can stand on its record in terms of its investment since coming to government in 2022 in regard to the industry.

This committee was initially established when we were in opposition. I established that committee which, because of the wide variety of information that we heard from industry, was able to provide excellent insights from which we then developed our forestry policy which we took to the 2022 state election. Of course, the then government had no forestry policy that it took to that election.

Many of the recommendations proposed by the select committee are actions that the Malinauskas Labor government is already addressing. Some of our actions include:

$16 million over 10 years for the Forestry Centre for Excellence, and that addresses the long-term research and development capability and certainty for the forest industry;

$2 million over three years to develop and implement the domestic manufacturing and infrastructure master plan, and that includes a focus on future skills needs—which, if I recall correctly, was one of matters addressed in the select committee;

the fire towers we have already discussed;

development of the Trees on Farms initiative to quantify and promote environmental and economic benefits of on-farm plantations and guide appropriate partnerships between timber processors and land holders; and

a number of other aspects that we are already addressing.

I have reached out to industry through the South Australian Forest Products Association for industry's feedback. On a general sense, and informally, the feedback has been that so many of the matters that are in that report are already being addressed by government, and indeed have been addressed over the last several years and, secondly, that there has been quite a change in the market in terms of forest products since that committee was re-established by the current Leader of the Opposition in the upper house. Industry has indicated that through SAFA they will provide a written response for my consideration as well, because I think that engagement with industry is always crucial.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. On page 60 in the highlights, and also in the targets, there is a bit of commentary around the monitoring of OneFortyOne's plantation compliance with its lease of the government's plantations in the Green Triangle. Has the government received any complaints or concerns from stakeholders like contractors, local councils or community groups relating to OneFortyOne's management of the estate in the last 12 months?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that none has been received through PIRSA, and I certainly have not heard any concerns, as the honourable member outlined. In fact on the contrary I have heard a number of comments, including at the 150-year celebration Friday week ago, that the level of investment that OneFortyOne has provided within the forest industry has been significant. They have also been heavily involved in workforce development, attracting people to the industry. Of course, that is not confined just to OneFortyOne but also includes other industry players within the sector.

Mr TELFER: Brilliant. So no complaints or concerns?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Not in the last 12 months, no.

Mr TELFER: Has OneFortyOne completed their annual audit for the year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised they have submitted the relevant information, and that is under review under the usual requirements of the contract.

Mr TELFER: Have those audit requirements been fully adhered to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the review of that is not yet complete. That is the normal sort of process and, I understand, the normal timeframes also. It is not yet complete.

Mr TELFER: Has OneFortyOne been found in breach of any lease conditions over the management of the plantations in the last 12 months?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it does not appear so but, as was mentioned, the department is still undertaking that review.

Mr TELFER: When is the review due to be completed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that part of the review is always to essentially ask lots of questions and ensure that there is all of the appropriate data, and that process is still underway.

Mr TELFER: Brilliant. With an eye on the clock, I want to finish with a couple of questions around the Trees on Farms Initiative. What fundings have been spent to date on the Labor government's Trees on Farms Initiative?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is a combination of investment. While the shortage of building timbers has eased for Australian builders, there still remains, of course, a need to secure future supply. The integration of trees into farming systems can help going forward. Planting more trees will also assist the state and the nation to decarbonise the economy and help reach net zero emission targets. The Trees on Farms Initiative is to quantify and promote the environmental and economic benefits of on-farm plantations, including soil protection, shade and shelter for livestock, and income diversification, and also to guide appropriate partnerships between timber processors and landholders.

There have been a series of information initiatives aimed at educating potential farmers and landowners interested in the on-farm forest plantation sector, and that is now available as part of the Trees on Farms Initiative. This includes a toolkit which was developed by the South Australian government in tandem with the Green Triangle Forest Industries Hub, featuring expert information and printable fact sheets to support and guide landholders in their commercial plantation investment. PIRSA continues to respond to inquiries from landholders interested in integrating trees into their properties and is open to participating in new initiatives that may support farm-based forestry.

Mr TELFER: How many farmers have taken up the initiative?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There have been a number who have already been involved in farm forestry previously. In fact, one of the workshops that we held at The Commodore in Mount Gambier probably 18 months or two years ago was particularly useful to have involvement of some farmers who have already found it to be useful in terms of integration within their existing farm enterprise.

It can include benefits such as extra shade for livestock and so on. At that workshop, if I recall correctly, we also had some interstate people who were knowledgeable on how it could work. Indeed, I know that in Tasmania there is quite a well developed initiative, which is something that I am being provided with additional information about. So it is not as though there is a grant program that we can say, 'Oh yes, there have been 35 applicants and they have received grants.' I guess it is not that sort of quantifiable figure.

Mr TELFER: How much has been spent on this initiative in this financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Some of the expenditure has included a part-time project officer—or a period of time is perhaps more accurate for a project officer—information brochures and so on. My understanding is that the direct investment has been $24,000 in this 2024-25 financial year, but, for example, these things are covered at things such as the Lucindale Field Day, so that would not be specifically, as far as I am aware, separated out as expenditure. So there are those other, if you like, in kind contributions that have occurred in this financial year as well.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of ForestrySA complete and the examination of the proposed payments and Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions now complete. I would like to thank the minister. I would like to thank all the public servants. We more than recognise all the work that is done behind the scenes in the lead-up to estimates. I would also like to thank members of the opposition for their participation and contribution and also the government members.

Sitting suspended from 13:17 to 14:15.