REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS

375 Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (18 February 2008). What is the remuneration and roles of the six new senior officers located in regions to work in partnership with the Regional Development Boards to facilitate regional projects and developments?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations): The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following information:

The six new senior officers, Manager Regions, are renumerated at the ASO7 level of between $75,751-$82,227.

Their role includes case management of projects and the regionalisation of South Australia's Strategic Plan.

They work in partnership with the regional stakeholders, including the Regional Development Boards, the Regional Facilitation Groups, Local Government, and local industry, to achieve objectives that support the regional implementation of South Australia's Strategic Plan and the objectives of the Department of Trade and Economic Development.

(a) SAICORP amalgamated with SAFA in 2006-07.

(a) As part of the abolition of DAIS.

*Note: An addition error has been published. The correct figure is 818.2 and not 825.2

(b ) The reconciliation in movement over the 3 years is as follows:

Department of Treasury and Finance

2007-08 Budget compared to 2006-07 Estimated Result:

The total estimated workforce as at 30 June 2008 of 1,166.8 FTEs is an expected increase of 56 FTEs from the estimated workforce of 1,110.8 FTEs as at 30 June 2007. This is mainly due to:

An increase of 26.4 FTEs for the Shared Services Reform Office;

An increase of 16 FTEs for the RISTEC project;

An increase of 9 FTEs within Super SA for new services to members;

An increase of 6 FTEs in Revenue SA for land tax anti-avoidance activity;

An increase of 4 FTEs for improved capital and Public Private Partnerships projects monitoring; and

Other minor increases of 1.6 FTEs.

The increases are offset by a reduction of 7 FTEs resulting from the savings initiatives approved as part of the 2006-07 Budget.

2006-07 Estimated Result compared to 2005-06 Actual:

The 2006-07 estimated result of 1,110.8 FTEs is 539.8 FTEs higher than the actual FTEs of 571 as at 30 June 2006. This is due to:

The transfer of 463.8 FTEs from DAIS to DTF for the State Procurement and Support Operations (SPSO) Branch;

An increase of 24.6 FTEs for the Shared Services Reform Office;

An increase of 14 FTEs for employees relating to compliance activities;

An increase of 6 FTEs for the RISTEC project;

An increase of 8 FTEs within Super SA for new services to members; and

An increase of 29.4 FTEs due to positions that were vacant as at 30 June 2006.

The increases are offset by a reduction of 6 FTEs resulting from the savings initiatives approved as part of the 2006-07 Budget.

Administered Items

2007-08 Budget compared to 2006-07 Estimated Result:

The total workforce as at 30 June 2008 of 256.1 is an increase of 4.2 FTEs from the estimated workforce as at 30 June 2007 of 251.9 FTEs. This is due to an increase of 2.3 FTEs in Funds SA and an increase of 1.9 FTEs in the Motor Accident Commission.

2006-07 Estimated Result compared to 2005-06 Actual:

The estimated result for 2006-07 is 35.9 FTEs higher than the actuals of 216.0 FTEs for June 2006. This is due to:

The inclusion of casual staff in the 2006-07 FTE numbers for Electorate Offices resulting in a net impact of 18.1 FTEs;

Vacancies of 2.1 FTEs for the Motor Accident Commission as at 30 June 2006 and additional staff of 1.4 FTEs in 2006-07;

Vacancies of 2.1 FTEs for ESCOSA as at 30 June 2006 and additional staff of 2.8 FTES in 2006-07;

Vacancies of 1.4 FTEs for Funds SA as at 30 June 2006 and additional staff of 4.9 FTEs for ESCOSA in 2006-07; and

Additional staff of 1.6 FTEs for the SA Motor Sport Board in 2006-07.

Trainees

2007-08 Budget compared to 2006-07 Estimated Result:

The total estimated Trainee number is unchanged.

2006-07 Estimated Result compared to 2005-06 Actual:

The estimated result for 2006-07 is 39.8 FTEs higher than the actuals for June 2006. This is due to the Electorate Offices recruiting fewer trainees than were estimated.