HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $341,333,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $20,260,000


Minister:

Hon. P.B. Malinauskas, Premier.


Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Walker, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms A. Lloydd-Wright, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Executive Director, Communities and Corporate, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr R. Morris, Chief Executive, Premier's Delivery Unit, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.


The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Premier to make a statement if he wishes and to introduce his advisers. I will then call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement, if he wishes, and then call on questions.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will introduce my advisers first. On my immediate left is Mr Damien Walker, the CEO of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. On his left is Alison Lloydd-Wright, who is the Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and on my right is Steve Woolhouse, who works for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement, Leader of the Opposition, or a question?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not have an opening statement so I will move on to the questions, starting with Budget Paper 3, page 12, table 1.5, variations since the 2022-23 budget. The 2022-23 budget had a projected surplus of $233 million, but the estimate for the 2023-24 budget resulted in an actual deficit of $249 million. The final line in table 1.5 predicts a $250 million surplus in 2023-24, $512 million in 2024-25 and a $552 million surplus in the 2025-26 financial year. How confident is the Premier in the Treasurer that he will deliver these surpluses for South Australians?

The CHAIR: Can just you clarify which line you are referring to?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Table 1.5.

The CHAIR: Your questions have to relate to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. If you are talking about the general overall budget, they need to be directed to the Treasurer.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier is responsible for the whole budget and his ministers and his chief executives, so I am hoping the Premier will answer these ones.

The CHAIR: The Premier will respond to those questions which relate to those areas which are his direct ministerial responsibilities. That is the Premier and Cabinet and the other ones in this agenda. If you wish to quiz any minister regarding the overall budget, you need to direct those to the Treasurer.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am seeing these as overarching figures which the Premier is responsible for as the leader of the government and the chair of cabinet responsible for all ministers, CEOs and the budget, and so I would have thought that anything in Budget Paper 3, page 12, which gives an overview of state finances would fall under the purview of the Premier of the state.

The CHAIR: Well, I am disagreeing with you and I am ruling that question out of order, but secondly your question asked for an opinion as well, rather than facts, so it was out of order for two reasons. You can reframe your question or you can go to the next question. The choice is yours.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Would you allow me to reframe the question from that table, though, as deeming that the figures in this table are whole of government figures and the Premier has a responsibility to answer questions in regard to those?

The CHAIR: To the extent they relate to the lines that are open, which are Premier and Cabinet and Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The answer is yes, subject to that qualification.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are you deeming that page 12 of Budget Paper 3 is open, table 1.5?

The CHAIR: To the extent it meets that requirement I just stipulated, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will ask the Premier the question again: is he confident that those surpluses will be achieved?

The CHAIR: Again, that is asking for an opinion. You need to move on to the next question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will those surpluses be achieved?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is what the budget says.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the Premier put in place strategies to ensure that those surpluses will be achieved?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Is this with respect to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet budget, or are you talking about—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Whole of government, if you would like.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The government has put together a budget, as we do every 12 months, and it is the expectation of our agencies to do everything within their means to meet that budget.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do the surpluses that are outlined in this table take into account expenditure on a university merger?

The CHAIR: At best, that would be a question that would be directed to the relevant minister, which is not the Premier in this case, but also, in my understanding, universities are funded by the commonwealth. They are not funded by the state.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is no funding allocated within the DPC expenditure items towards the university amalgamation.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is there any funding allocated within the whole-of-government budget?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are no costs associated with the university amalgamation in the DPC budget, which is the line that is open.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do these surpluses take into account funding for the universal three-year-old preschool?

The CHAIR: Again, that is not related to DPC. Ask your next question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do these budgets take into account funding for the relocation of the police mounted operations?

The CHAIR: You will need to ask the police minister for that bit.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Table 2.6 of the same budget paper, page 23, includes the budget line for DPC in the second half of that table. The 2023-24 budget makes clear that every single government agency, other than the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commissioner and TAFE SA, have blown their budget, sometimes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The total operating expenses blowout shown here for the 2022-23 financial year is $1.353 million.

Does the Premier take responsibility for this, and what assurances can he provide South Australians that his government, and particularly his department, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, will lead the way and get a better handle on financial management in the area?

The CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition seems not to be clear about the estimates process versus question time. The question you have just posed is quite relevant to question time. I reiterate—again—that any question—

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Hartley!

Mr Brown interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Florey! Do you wish to remain in the chamber?

Mr BROWN: I do, sir.

The CHAIR: Okay. Leader of the Opposition, your question has gone beyond the remit of this committee. Rephrase it or move on.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There was a fair bit of preamble in there, which I am happy to take out, and ask: does the Premier take responsibility for the budget blowout for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The CHAIR: There is argument in that question, and I am ruling it out of order. It does not relate to the actual budget line. Premier, you do not have to answer the question. Next question, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given the budget blowout within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, is the Premier concerned about the systemic lack of sound financial management in the department?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, are you asking a question about the variance between—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is so much—

The CHAIR: Premier, hold on a second. Leader of the Opposition, if you are asking about a variance between a budgeted item and the actual expenditure can you please state that, what the amount is, and then ask the Premier why the variance exists.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The operating expenses for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet were budgeted to be $297 million in in the 2022-23 financial year, but the actual estimated result was some $66 million more than that at $363 million. Can the Premier provide information as to how this actual result occurred?

The CHAIR: That wasn't so hard, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you for your encouragement.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are a range of reasons for the discrepancy, including active decisions made by the government during the course of the period, including additional funding allocated throughout the course of the Mid-Year Budget Review for new measures being undertaken by the government.

One would have thought that, given the Leader of the Opposition has been in cabinet, he would be aware of the fact that throughout the course of any period, including post the budget, active decisions are made by the government for specific funding lines for the government to undertake various actions that they choose to do.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The $66 million discrepancy between the budget for 2022-23 and the actual result is significant in size. Can the Premier detail which areas of his department exceeded their budgets and whether there has been any action taken to improve performance?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are a range of active decisions the government undertook to expend on new measures that are reflected in that discrepancy. Various activities around our population growth strategy were allocated new expenditure, and expenditure around major business events, in particular, was funded through this exercise, including new events to the state, and that was funded through DPC. The Leader of the Opposition would be well aware that the major events portfolio sits within DPC for a range of reasons, and there were allocations of new funds for that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier table or take on notice a list, or if he does not have a list, can a decision be taken on notice to provide a list of initiatives or projects, whether new or existing, that resulted in expenditure over $1 million?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is all information contained within the budget papers. In Agency Statements, Volume 4, there is a thorough explanation or thorough categorisation of those expenditures: everything from financial assistance to River Murray communities to the population growth strategy, public information activities, what was done around the Adelaide City Deal, and an audit of security arrangements in key government departments, particularly around information security and training across government. I mentioned the business events and conventions; that is all listed there.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given that the entire quantum of the $66 million overspend cannot be entirely attributed to new initiatives approved by cabinet during the 2022-23 financial year and some of it can be attributed to overspends, in particular budget lines that could be categorised as day-to-day business within the department, has the Premier received assurances that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet will not exceed their budget in 2023-24?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The government makes decisions; that is what the government does. In fact, we have been making lots of them. The government, during the course of a budgetary period, will make active decisions to allocate new funds to various expenditure measures. Sometimes those decisions have homes in specific departments, otherwise they can sit with a central agency. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to imply and use language such as 'blowouts' and so forth, which is not true. Like I said, governments make decisions to allocate new amounts of funding to specific areas when events unfold and opportunities arise.

Take the floods, for instance: as the Treasurer explained in some detail throughout the course of the budget exercise, whether it be in health, whether it be in the emergency services response around the floods and what have you, the government makes active decisions on behalf of the people of the state to apply additional expenditure in those areas, as is a matter of course in the day-to-day operations of the government. They are reflected in the budget papers and in changes in numbers accordingly.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I accept the Premier's position that decisions of the day, responding to particular events or opportunities, can lead to increased expenditure and variations but, given DPC overspent its budget on items that could be described as day-to-day activities—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What examples does the Leader of the Opposition provide for that?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Salaries in particular, additional staff that were required.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, which page are you on?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I would like to know where the Leader of the Opposition is referring because—

The CHAIR: Which page are you on?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Areas like minor capital works.

The CHAIR: No, I actually want to know which page it is on.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which paper and which page?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is just one example; you asked for one example—one would be the investing expenditure summary.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which paper and which page?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If you look at the areas that come under the Premier's responsibilities, such as the—

The CHAIR: You may well wish to go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, if you at look page 13, for instance, where—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which budget paper are you looking at?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Page 13 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, and again there are examples on page 15.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Where is the example on page 13?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Page 13 shows that the actual result for 2022 rising significantly in 2023 for the workforce summary for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and that is clearly considerably higher than was budgeted for. We see a range of variations on page 15. To point to particular examples, if you run down that list, the day-to-day activities within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, they have clearly ended up being quite a bit more than the 2022-23 budget might otherwise have been.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, I am struggling to see or hear the Leader of the Opposition's specific examples but, as I referred to earlier, a range of active decisions were made throughout the course of the relevant 12-month period for appropriate expenditures, and that is reflected in the budget.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I guess in a general sense my question is pitched at whether there is ill-discipline in the—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —financial management of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and whether the Premier is concerned about that ill-discipline.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not one bit, no.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier does not believe there is ill-discipline in his department, despite its $66 million budget blowout?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Well, there is not a $66 million budget blowout, and the characterisation of such from the Leader of the Opposition completely misrepresents the facts at hand. As has been explained earlier, over the course of a 12-month period the government makes active decisions to adjust the budget, and that has been adhered to by the department appropriately. That reflects in the expenditure decisions of the government.

The sort of absurd language the Leader of the Opposition uses, which we are becoming somewhat accustomed to, misrepresents the facts. I am more than happy to examine specific expenditure measures undertaken by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet if the Leader of the Opposition simply points to an example or a question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier mentioned in response to my previous question about decisions made around major events in the state, looking at the Budget Measures Statement on page 64, which includes the budget events fund—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not trying to be difficult, but which volume are you talking about? Are you talking about Budget Paper 4, Volume 4?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think it is Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, yes. Let me just check. This is in the Budget Measures Statement, which would be Budget Paper 5.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes. What page?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is page 64; that is where the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's budget measures or initiatives are listed. There are quite a few questions for this area as the morning unfolds. In relation to the Major Events Fund, can the Premier tell us how much of the $10 million that was budgeted in the last years remaining in the Major Events Fund, if any?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, I cannot hear you. Repeat the question, sorry.

The CHAIR: Can you speak a little louder, please. I cannot hear your question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier tell us how much, if any, of the $10 million that was budgeted for the Major Events Fund in the previous financial year is remaining? I think it was $10 million a year for four years: $40 million in total.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: As the budget papers indicate, the Major Events Fund has received a boost in its allocation. That is reflected in the budget papers that we put out publicly. In respect of the remaining balance, the government does have the capacity, given the funding boost, to recruit major events. It depends on the year we are talking about, because there are some events that have taken up an allocation by virtue of the fact that they are of a more one-off nature, whereas there are other events where the government might have a two, three or four-year deal—for instance, Gather Round. The Beach Volleyball World Championships is a one-off. Obviously, the cost between those events varies and the scaling across the forward estimates varies as well.

In terms of the remaining allocation that is available, apart from the fact that it varies from year to year it is also important that we do not publicly disclose—apart from what is in the budget papers, of course—how much remainder exists within each year. The reason why we do that is the same reason why some of those events have commercial-in-confidence arrangements attached to them that are in the government's interest apart from the specific entity's interest. Simply, we do not want our competitors to know how much capacity the government has to go after new events, beyond what is our publicly allocated volume of funding that we put into the budget papers.

The performance of major events naturally should enjoy the scrutiny of not just the parliament but also the public more broadly, and they do. I think what is clear to all South Australians (except for some members of the opposition, I appreciate) is that these have been a major success. I note the Leader of the Opposition at various points has been opposed to most of those major events and then subsequently changed his position after the event has taken place—I think with the exception of LIV Golf. I think the Leader of the Opposition has maintained his criticism of that event.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Correct.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Which, presumably, means that at the next election the people of South Australia will have to decide whether or not that event continues. The major events policy has been a major success, and it is one that we remain committed to maintaining. Just yesterday, of course, the publicly released figures came out in terms of the size of the tourism economy. This government is smashing all records that have gone before it. We are not just beating them at the margins by a few per cent that might reflect CPI or natural growth that you might expect in a growing economy; we are smashing all records that have gone before. I think that is virtuous.

We have made these investments for two reasons; the first is the obvious economic benefit. If we are more particular about it, it is the fact that even about 14 months ago from today there were still restrictions on many parts of our economy as a result of COVID—restrictions that I supported in government as well as in opposition. But it did have a really substantial and deleterious impact on a lot of people who can afford it the least, and that is why we went to the election with a major events policy.

The second benefit probably has what was not the principal driver of the policy but has emerged to be a substantial one, and that is the fact that we have captured the attention of the nation, and in many instances the attention of the world, and that is something we should be very deliberate about.

I for one passionately believe in the future of the state and we deserve to have a bit more attention on us every now and then, which actually brings with it a whole suite of ancillary long-term economic benefits in terms of confidence not within the state but outside of the state to invest into it. That is bearing itself out as being exceptionally powerful and that is why we continue to maintain the policy and we have no intention of departing from it despite the fervent opposition from the opposition.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Minister for Tourism have any oversight of the Major Events Fund and, if not, who does and why?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Major Events Fund sits within DPC, not so much because I am seeking to control it personally but more because having it within a central agency allows its expenditure to be informed by a range of different other agencies. Naturally, the South Australian Tourism Commission and the Minister for Tourism are central to that effort but so is the Major Events Attraction Committee which sits within DPC and is chaired by the member for Mawson, who has done a sterling job in not just running that committee but turning his mind to how we attract those events and which ones we go after.

There are a number of irons that remain in the fire that we hope to have good news about in due course. But myself, the Minister for Tourism, the chair of the Major Events Advisory Committee and the Treasurer would represent the principal nucleus of decisions made in the area in terms of the political architecture, but naturally advice is sought from agencies also including the Department for Trade and Investment in this area.

If I speak plainly, I think there are opportunities for the government to position itself and structure itself in a better way to maximise the potential of these events in terms of investment attraction and that is something that we are currently turning our minds to in terms of how we will go about doing that. Because it does touch on a number of agencies, we do want to be a bit better coordinated given the success and what we believe the growth of these existing events will be into the future, particularly Gather Round and the golf but also the Adelaide 500.

I remember it was not that long ago when I was asking questions as the Leader of the Opposition of the former Premier, asking about the government's events strategy which it had committed itself to after axing the Adelaide 500. I remember there were references to the excitement around attracting the Masters Rowing event, which I am sure has its place, but does not have the economic potential that the Adelaide 500 or the Gather Round or LIV Golf have. We are really proud of the results that the whole team have been able to put together from SATC and otherwise to get as much out of those events as possible, and it is an effort that we remain committed to.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: On the same page 64 of the Budget Measures Statement, again the Major Events Fund, the Major Events Fund description identifies:

This initiative does not include the government's continued commitment to hosting the LIV Golf tournament and AFL Gather Round.

Does expenditure for these events appear in the budget and, if so, where?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Naturally, any expenditure of government exists within the budget and so, yes, the answer is of course it sits within the budget papers.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Is it contained within the budget papers for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, it is, in program 1.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given that, is the Premier able to reveal how much it cost taxpayers in the 2022-23 financial year to host the sportswashing LIV Golf tournament?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, and I say that for a number of reasons. There is no sportswashing tournament, as the Leader of the Opposition well appreciates. The allegations of sportswashing are ones that the government does not accept or agree with. For the Leader of the Opposition to have a degree of consistency in his position he would, of course, have to advocate for the suspension of all trade with Saudi Arabia—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Which is quite different.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —which, of course, is an important trading part of South Australia in a range of areas, particularly around primary produce, amongst others. The Leader of the Opposition presumably would also be aware that the former state government, with the Land Forces convention, hosted the Saudi defence minister here in South Australia only a few years ago. I do not remember the Leader of the Opposition complaining about that then.

Also, if the LIV Golf tournament is sportswashing, as the Leader of the Opposition has sought to characterise, then of course so is the PGA, which the Leader of the Opposition has declared publicly his brother is actively involved in because, of course, there is a now a direct relationship between the entirety of the PGA and all its tournaments and the public investment fund. So there is an intellectual weakness to the Leader of the Opposition's characterisation of that.

I am happy to point out, through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to the people of South Australia that those 77,000 people who came to that tournament should know and be well aware that the Leader of the Opposition has a policy of abolishing those tournaments—clearly. That is his prerogative, but naturally it is important that those 77,000 people are aware of that when they turn their mind to how they cast their vote at the next election.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the Premier received assurances from the new organisers of LIV Golf, whether that be the PGA or an amalgam of the PGA and LIV Golf management, that it will return to South Australia over each of the next three years? If not, is the taxpayer liable for any costs?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I enjoy these questions in particular, Mr Deputy Chairman, because it speaks to this inconsistency of position. On one hand, they believe the tournament should go and on the other hand they believe the tournament should stay.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, we just do not believe that taxpayers' money should be wasted on it, and the government should be fighting for the return of that money should this thing have gone belly up.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is no money at risk to the government; we only pay for the tournaments that we get. That is pretty obvious. There is no money at risk from the government's perspective or the taxpayers' perspective. What is at risk is the future of these types of events should the alternative Premier end up becoming Premier. It is all at risk. It has been characterised as a waste of money by the Leader of the Opposition in multiple forums on multiple occasions. He is entitled to that opinion.

But that presumably means the hospitality industry, the accommodation industry, the airline industry and the tens of thousands of people in the tourism experiences industry and the tens of thousands of people who are employed by those industries in our state are entitled to be very concerned about that prospect.

This has been an unbridled success. It has been a source not just of state pride but of new wealth being attracted to our state, and that is exactly what we are aiming to achieve. That is why the government's policy is in place. The Leader of the Opposition wants to mark it down as much as he likes—as I said, that is his prerogative—but we are completely at ease with the success of the policy proposition and I think that stands to reason. Independently verified figures yesterday pointed to the $9.3 billion that the state's tourism economy now represents.

In respect of the LIV tournament more specifically, yes, of course, given its success, the government has been in touch with the organisers, particularly given the news that the PGA has now embraced—including presumably the Leader of the Opposition's brother—the Public Investment Fund. About what that means for the future of LIV, the government has sought and been given assurances that the tournament scheduled next year is due to go ahead as planned, but clearly there is much detail being worked out between LIV, the PGA and the newly formed entity chaired by the chair of the Public Investment Fund. As those details become available, the government anticipates to be in receipt of those.

The critical thing is that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition's insinuation, there is no money at risk. We only pay for the tournaments we get.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So, just to clarify, there is no guarantee that that tournament will return to Adelaide.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We have a contract with LIV. It is no different from the guarantee that we have with the AFL that Gather Round will be here next year as well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The AFL is not at risk of falling over any time soon or being moved elsewhere, whereas LIV Golf clearly is.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If LIV Golf ceases to exist for whatever reason because it has been embraced in a different form by the US PGA, then clearly that would be a change of circumstance, but for as long as that tournament exists then we will be hosting events in Adelaide. There are a lot of people looking forward to that in South Australia and also, critically, interstate.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: And just an important point: if that were to eventuate, then the government would have more funds that would otherwise have gone to that event to allocate to other events.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Which would be hopefully something more wholesome and less morally defunct.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What amazes me is how at ease the Leader of the Opposition is with casting moral judgements on over 70,000 people who went to a golf tournament. He clearly is of a higher moral authority than I to be able to make those judgements of others so easily. I would not be so presumptuous to do that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 24, the Premier's Delivery Unit.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will introduce Mr Rik Morris who is in charge of the Premier's Delivery Unit.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How does the Premier's Delivery Unit oversee the delivery of identified government priorities, and are there any processes in place to protect the public sector from political influence?

The CHAIR: That question has a lot of opinion and also argument in it. If you want to refer to the financial arrangements, please do so and rephrase your question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So that I can learn from the process, Chair, can you tell me where the opinion and the argument were within that question? 'How does the Premier's Delivery Unit oversee the delivery of identified government priorities?', that was not, and, 'Are there any processes,' and I am thinking HR processes, 'to protect public sector employees from potential political influence?' I am not sure there is any argument there.

The CHAIR: I have said this a few times, Leader of the Opposition, and I will say it again: you need to ask questions about the finances. The questions you have raised can be raised in question time and are appropriate for question time. If you would like to interrogate—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The questions do not need to be about financial matters. Anything in any government instrumentality is paid for through the budget, so that is financial in its very nature. You are taking a very strict approach of interpretation, Chair.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to rephrase your question, or do you wish to go to the next question?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will split it in two. How does the Premier's Delivery Unit oversee the delivery of identified government priorities?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Premier's Delivery Unit has a little more specific remit than the one just referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier's Delivery Unit's specific remit is to ensure that the government is actively monitoring the delivery of all its election commitments. In a number that even shocked me, when you break down in a very specific way each of the government's election commitments, there were over 700 of them, lots of them smaller than others, clearly. What we have sought to do is break all those down and establish a unit within government whose task it is to monitor the delivery of those and to ensure that it occurs.

This is not dissimilar to what other governments of other political persuasions around the world, both left and right, have done in many instances. The example that informed the government's decision to do this was the Blair government in the UK. Thus far, I have found it to be an exceptionally worthwhile exercise.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has a whole range of functions in the extraordinary amount of work that it is undertaking. Some of the work that we are putting in front of the DPC is demanding in its nature, given the scope of policy the government is seeking to pursue. So having a specific unit that is dedicated exclusively to the monitoring and the delivery of election commitments has been exceptionally worthwhile thus far, and that is what the Premier's Delivery Unit focuses on.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the establishment of the Premier's Delivery Unit, were any HR processes or guidelines put in place to protect the public sector from political influence?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: All government agencies, and the Premier's Delivery Unit is no exception, have to follow the due processes that exist within government, including processes that exist within the Public Sector Act.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: At any point during the administration of the Premier's Delivery Unit over the past year or so has it been identified that such a unit could be subject to accusations of political interference in the Public Service, compared with another government instrumentality?

The CHAIR: Also, the Premier is not responsible for any potential accusations made.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Not that I am aware of. In terms of when the Leader of the Opposition uses the words 'political interference', there is a direct line between myself and, naturally, the CEO of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The PDU is structured so that it reports to me, and on a regular basis I absolutely interfere with the work of the Premier's Delivery Unit. That is the whole idea: they report to me.

I ask them to provide detailed advice on a probably too frequent basis about where various things are up to, just to make sure that we are making progress at the adequate pace, to ensure that we do not just deliver on our commitments but we do it within the stated time lines. Often, we make commitments to the electorate to do a particular measure, but also by a particular time frame, and that is something that we are pretty determined to stick to. I think thus far we have done that. There are a whole range of commitments that we have made with specific time lines in place, and we have been able to honour those, more or less, very accurately, and that we remain committed to.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the Premier or his chief executive ever received complaints about the conduct of the Premier's Delivery Unit and its staff, particularly its chief executive, with regard to interactions with public servants?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Premier's Delivery Unit liaise with specified officers in each agency who keep track of election commitments?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, that is the whole idea.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are there nominated officers within particular agencies, i.e. is it the chief executive or a specific officer who would be the named point of contact?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Ultimately, the chief executive is responsible for those other agencies, but the PDU will naturally engage with various officers outside the chief executive specifically. If I was to give you a specific example (and correct me if it is wrong), we have very specific commitments around the Ambulance Service—in fact, very specific commitments around the Ambulance Service—so it would not be unusual for the leader of the Premier's Delivery Unit to be in touch with the head of SAAS, Rob Elliott: 'Where is the Victor Harbor upgrade at?' 'What is going on with the Mount Barker recruitment exercise?' 'What is the latest update on the delivery of the new station on Hanson Road, Woodville?'

That is how you get to over 700 very quickly because, just in terms of the Ambulance Service alone, there are countless commitments made about the number of staff, location of staff, station upgrades, new stations, the number of actual new ambulances that the government is buying. We were very specific in terms of our plan. They were not so much commitments. It was a comprehensive plan, but a plan that could reasonably be characterised as being broken down individually to a suite of different commitments. We have allocated them accordingly and it is standard operating. It is the whole idea of the PDU to be able to monitor each of those, and that necessarily results in engagement with line agencies.

Ultimately, what the PDU does is, where they see a lack of progress or something not on track to be able to honour our commitment, they report back to me. That gives me the ability to go back to other chief executives, but more often than not it might be me going to the CEO of DPC, just to chase something up and make sure it happens. It you want to call that interference, that is fine. Others might call it me instructing government to deliver on our commitments, which is what the people of our state would, I would have thought, expect

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Given the Premier used the provision of ambulance services as one of the focus points of the Premier's Delivery Unit, and given that Labor's election policy document in the lead-up to the election quoted that the immediate focus of the Malinauskas Labor government would be to address the ramping and hospital overcrowding crisis, is the Premier's Delivery Unit responsible for ensuring that the government's response to fixing the ramping and hospital overcrowding crisis is delivered on?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is ultimately the responsibility of the government as a whole, meeting our election commitments, including in respect of our health commitments, where we have a number of specific ones with a view to achieving a general objective. They are responsibilities that principally sit with the health minister, but the PDU monitors the specific areas of those commitments where there is a commitment to a particular resource, to a particular location—an additional number of beds at Modbury Hospital, for instance. The PDU's job is to monitor that. In terms of the delivery of performance in the health service more broadly, that obviously sits with the Department for Health, which is led by the Minister for Health.

In terms of ramping, we were very clear throughout the election—under repeated questioning, and this was criticised by the opposition at the time—that our commitment was to reduce ramping. Our objective in terms of fixing the ramping crisis, when asked what 'fixing' means, we made it clear that fixing the ramping crisis means reducing ramping to the extent that we can get ambulances rolling up on time again. That is what we are committed to. We have started to see some really good results, but we still have some way to go.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the Premier's Delivery Unit rank election commitments in order of priority, and is fixing ramping the number one priority of the Premier's Delivery Unit; if not, why not?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: All our commitments are priorities. If you have a group of constituents and their principal concern is decarbonisation of our economy and another group of constituents have a specific interest around public transport—it not being privatised, for instance—or you might have commitments around road infrastructure or education commitments, I think each group would take the view that those commitments were paramount and should be a priority in their own right.

The PDU do not discriminate between commitments. They might spend more time in health than they do in another area just by virtue of the number of commitments in health—health and education represent the vast bulk of our commitments—which would mean there is more effort from PDU in that regard, but we are seeking to deliver on all our commitments. That is the objective.

In terms of the Leader of the Opposition's question, clearly improving the performance of the health system is a priority of ours, and the very budget we are going through probably serves as the best example of that. The budget is where the rubber hits the road for any government. It is easy for politicians to run around and say, 'Well, this is my priority,' and, 'That's my priority,' and all of a sudden everything is a priority, but at the end of the day you have to allocate resources, and that demonstrates what your priorities are.

It is clear in our budget papers that health and what we are doing around skills and education are probably our two biggest areas of priority, along with other economic investments. Health is clearly a big priority. South Australians will be in no doubt if they just look at the budget papers. If they want to scrutinise the sense of priority and see the difference in terms of the change of government last year, they only need pick up the budget papers to see a government committed to cutting health, as was the previous government's thing—and the consequences were catastrophic, with ambulances not rolling up on time, not even half the time—and this government, which is prioritising a lot of expenditure on health and now ambulances are rolling up on time more than half the time. They are two very different contrasts and, hopefully, a demonstration of why elections do matter.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier mentioned a moment ago in his answer to a question a figure of around 700 election commitments that were being monitored by the Premier's Delivery Unit. Can the Premier provide a specific figure on how many election commitments the Premier's Delivery Unit has identified and can those be tabled in full?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I mentioned the number of over 700. Like I say, we have taken a very deliberately generous application of what gets characterised as a commitment. I gave health as an example of how you can take one big commitment and extrapolate that out into dozens. In terms of how we are tracking, the latest advice is that only 14, 15 or 16 months into the government, we already have delivered on half of those—over half, 52 per cent in fact.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Would the Premier be able to table a full list that indicates which ones have been fulfilled.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Savvas): Leader, I remind you that you cannot table documents during estimates, but the Premier is able to take it on notice, if he wishes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Would the Premier take on notice a request to provide a full list of election commitments being monitored by the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question. These are not in any particular order. We have provided funding for the upgrade of the South Adelaide Football Club; provided funding for improvements to Knox Park; provided funding for the Springbank Sports Centre; provided funding to the upgraded community facilities at The Brocas reserve, St Clair; provided funding for the Tea Tree Gully Gymsports redevelopment; provided funding for the Tea Tree Gully Tennis Club; and provided funding for the Tilley Reserve upgrade.

We have also allocated the committed funding to the restoration of Walkerville community hub and provided funding for the Warradale Park Tennis Club. We have re-established the EMC that was chaired by myself; we scrapped the Riverbank Arena Stadium; we restored the 2019 boundaries for the CBD school zone that was scrapped by the former government; and provided funding for the Western Districts soccer clubs. The additional funding that we committed to Arthritis SA for a new nurse to specifically support arthritis patients has been delivered.

We have already offered the 400 university scholarships over four years to strengthen and diversify the teaching profession in South Australia. We have funded Parkinson's SA for four new Parkinson's nurses to better support people living with Parkinson's. We have provided funding for the upgrade of the Ballara Park Reserve, including the public toilet facility. We have provided funding for the installation of the inclusive and accessible playground infrastructure at Apex Park, Gawler.

We have provided funding for the Epilepsy Centre for three new epilepsy nurses to help reduce emergency hospital visits—that has been a particular success. We have provided funding for the bike path from Willunga to Aldinga. This will chew up the rest of estimates if I read over 52 per cent of 700. Does the leader—I am happy to—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or provide the document publicly.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not able to table it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, but you could take on notice my request and then send it to me.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We have made this publicly available and I am happy to just hand it over at any stage.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The list that you were going through there, were those the ones that have been fulfilled or achieved?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Would you also be able to give a list of the ones that have not to date?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to refer the Leader of the Opposition to our various commitments, and make sure that we can hand over anything that we have available to us in respect to how we are going.

The CHAIR: You cannot table a document.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take on notice the list of election commitments that we have delivered upon.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In terms of the work of the Premier's Delivery Unit, you have your election commitments but obviously government as part of its day-to-day work would make new commitments, follow up new projects and announce new projects. Do those get added to the work of the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There will be an occasion when I might ask the Premier's Delivery Unit to follow up various things that we have sought to establish.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We talked earlier about the Premier's Delivery Unit's focus on health care promises and particularly ramping. Given that the publicly available statistics around ramping have shown that it has not improved, will Rik Morris be continuing as Chief Executive of the Premier's Delivery Unit and, if so, why?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, because he is doing a good job.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will he receive a pay increase?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am sure he would like to. He has just confirmed that he is happy with his salary. He will receive the same pay increase that other department executives receive in the Public Service.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the duration of Mr Morris's contract?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Five years.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier provide now or take on notice a breakdown of all Premier's Delivery Unit expenses on supplies and services?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I think it is in the budget papers.

The CHAIR: You can take it on notice, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In Agency Statement, Volume 4, page 24, the Premier's Delivery Unit provides a breakdown there, which is there to be seen and scrutinised.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Other than the chief executive, were all FTEs in the Premier's Delivery Unit recruited through normal public sector recruitment procedures? If the Premier is not certain of this, can he take the question on notice?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take it on notice, but as the Leader of the Opposition would well understand, there are rules in place in terms of how public sector recruitment operates and those roles have to be complied with. The PDU is no different from any other government agency.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are all staff in the Premier's Delivery Unit public sector employees?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Obviously, people who are employed by the PDU are public sector employees, but there are people who do work for the PDU under contract.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are 10 staff, I believe, in the Premier's Delivery Unit at the moment and predicted to be 10 staff in the forthcoming financial year. What is the breakdown between staff who are on the type of contract the Premier just referred to and those who are not?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the PDU currently has seven people on its staff.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Seven normal staff?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Seven staff, and there is one person who is contracted to do some work for the PDU from time to time.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So there are eight staff at the moment?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, seven.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: And the total FTE count? It does say in the budget papers 10 FTEs.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: He is under his FTE cap.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What is the ratio of executive to non-executive positions in the unit?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Obviously there is Mr Morris, who is the Chief Executive of the PDU, then there is one executive director and two directors. The rest are not of a director nature.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So there is a chief executive, an executive director—

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: One executive director and then two directors.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The chief executive, executive director, two directors and then three staff who are non-executive.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: What are each of the position titles, and what is the total remuneration package or classification for each of the seven staff currently working there?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The employee expenses are outlined in the budget papers. The total employee benefits expense for the 2023-24 budget is listed there as $1.528 million.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Could the Premier provide a breakdown? He may have to take that on, if he is willing to.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take notice what we can reasonably put in the public realm. I know that has to happen with your wage, Mr Morris.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think Mr Morris has been in The Advertiser recently, so we have that one.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Good.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: But it is the other ones.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is no aversion from me to put things in the public realm that are able to be put in the public realm.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am comfortable with that, Premier. What I am after is the position title and their remuneration, if that can be provided on the public record.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Noted. I have just been advised that public servants outside of chief executives do not traditionally have their wages disclosed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes. You could put their levels—SAES1, SAES2, ASO-8. That is really all I am after. I do not need to see mobile phone provisions and super and stuff like that; just the classification levels are fine.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Let me take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on, I will ask a couple of questions and then hand to Mr Tarzia and Mr Batty for a few moments. My final questions for the meantime are on Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13, which is the ministerial office resources specifically—obviously, in this case, the Premier's office. The Premier may want to take this on notice.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What is the budget paper again, sorry?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is just the ministerial offices section on page 13 of Budget Paper 4. You have Minister Bettison and your offices listed there on that page. There are 46 FTE positions listed as being part of the ministerial office resources within the Premier's office. I presume the Premier will need to take this on notice, if willing. Can the Premier provide the job titles of all 46 FTEs in his office?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Correct me if I am wrong here, but periodically as a matter of course the names and titles of all ministerial advisers are publicly gazetted.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think sometimes it can be hard to work out who works where from those. I am wondering if there is a consolidated list of the 46 that are deemed to work within the Premier's office.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Are any staff seconded to work in the Premier's office and, if so, how many and where from?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Seconded as in from the Public Service?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Either from other offices or the Public Service.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. I am absolutely certain that amongst the ministerial adviser staff there are examples of people who are in that position, but I will just have to take it on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy for that to be taken on notice. Are any staff contracted to work from the Premier's office outside the 46 FTEs and, if so, how many and where from?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: When you say contracted from outside, do you mean that we have taken from other agencies?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Again, I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Or external from the Public Service altogether potentially on a short-term contract.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Do you mean has the office of the Premier contracted an employee outside that 46?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: No, not that I am aware of. I am advised no, to be more specific.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Do any of the Premier's staff work from home and, if so, how often?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I bloody hope so, because—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Agreed.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —Leader of the Opposition—and the reason why I say that is that they all work from home from time to time because they all work a lot more than nine to five.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They all work all the time.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, and I think the Leader of the Opposition would well appreciate that, as I am sure many of his staff do.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I guess I was meaning in a more formal sense in post-COVID times, where certain staff, and this is not a criticism, could have a negotiated agreement that they do two days a week at home and three days in the office, just as an example.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am not aware of any specific agreement per se along those lines, but what I would say is that as Premier I would have an expectation that, where people on occasions want to work from home if they have a sick parent or a sick child, in those sorts of circumstances we seek to be a good employer in how we go about that. At the same time, I do not mind saying I think it is reasonably well known that if you are interested in a high-quality work-life balance these jobs tend not to be really for you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think we are in agreement with that, Premier.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am just trying to speak plainly and honestly. Notwithstanding that, where we can make appropriate accommodations, I am sure we would seek to do that, but I am not advised of any formal specific arrangements.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will hand over to Mr Tarzia now for a couple of minutes. I think we are changing to Infrastructure SA.

The CHAIR: Member for Hartley, do you have any questions for the Auditor-General?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

The CHAIR: Any questions for the Productivity Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We may return if there is time, but this is for Infrastructure SA. There is a bit of preamble, so I will ask a lengthy question if you like. Referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Agency Statements, pages 22 and 23, Infrastructure SA, I note that expenditure increased to support a Northern Water Supply business case for a 95-gigalitre desal plant in Upper Spencer Gulf.

If this business case has been completed as indicated, when will the decision be made on whether that project will go ahead? The Premier might be aware that, for example, Infrastructure SA has also said that a location would be investigated and potentially even announced tomorrow, 30 June, so any information that you have on that project.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I thank the member for Hartley for his question because this is, in my estimation, a far more substantial line of questioning than the erecting of a security fence somewhere in parliament, given that it might pertain to the future of the state economically for thousands upon thousands of people.

The cabinet is due to be submitting its business case in the not too distant future. There are active negotiations on between the government and BHP as we speak. There is an iterative process that needs to be gone through in order to reach any final decision about the future of Northern Water that will take some time.

To be more specific, the first decision point is to enter into an environmental impact statement, which is what we are currently negotiating with BHP. That has a very substantial expense associated with it—hundreds of millions of dollars to do that work, which is clearly substantial in its own right; who wears the cost of that is being negotiated with BHP at the moment. I hope that we can arrive at that decision in the next 10 to 12 weeks. From there, the environmental impact statement process will be undertaken.

That piece of work will take 12 to 18 months, and then a decision has to be made about FID between all the relevant parties concerned ahead of potential construction. There is a lot of water that has to go under this bridge (no pun intended) before any final decision is made committing to construction of the development. We are as a government excited about the project. We think it has an extraordinary amount of potential, but something of this scale and scope requires an awful lot of due diligence, and that is what the government is working through.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: On the same budget area, page 23, supplies and services, under expenses. the budget was about $4.3 million, estimated result $15 million. What was the reason for that significant change? It is supplies and services, page 23.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: You are looking at the $15 million?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is the funding of the business case.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Referring again to that project, given the government's own website on the Northern Water Supply says that an investment decision on the proposed site will be made by 30 June, which is tomorrow, can the Premier advise us on the outcome of the business case and whether or not a specific location will be subject to a detailed EIS in 2023-24, as previously envisaged?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, just say that question again.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Referring to the project, Northern Water, I believe that there is a website, the opposition has been informed, that an investment decision on the proposed site will be made by 30 June. Can the Premier advise us now on the outcome of the business case and whether or not a specific location will be subject to a detailed EIS in 2023-24?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is what is being negotiated with BHP at the moment.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Referring again to the same area, has budgetary provision been made for a detailed EIS for the project in 2023-24, which I understand is estimated to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, or has the government already decided to can the project based on that business case. or are you still saying it is happening?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That is a good question. The government has absolutely not decided to can anything—far from it. The government is in negotiations with BHP around the funding of that EIS, as I said earlier. That is going to cost a lot of money, and the question is: who is going to pay it? This is what we are negotiating with BHP on. There is more than one party who would be potentially using the water from Northern Water: obviously there is the state government itself, there is potentially SA Water into the future and BHP, but there are also other private companies that may be customers of the water from Northern Water. So the funding of the EIS, in the government's estimation, should be a shared expense, not worn exclusively by the government, and that is what we are negotiating with the parties, particularly BHP.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We might move to the omnibus questions.

Mr BATTY: I will read these in:

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

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

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

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 2022, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise what share it is receiving of the $1.5 billion the government proposes to use over four years of uncommitted capital reserves held in the budget at the time it took office and the purpose for which this funding is being used in each case?

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

What was the actual FTE count at June 2023 and what is the projected actual FTE count for the end of each year of the forward estimates;

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

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

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

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

14. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2023-24?

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

16. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

Budgeted expenditure from the program or fund; and

Details, including the value and beneficiary, or any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this compare to last year?

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

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

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

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

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, it is 11.15. The time allocated for the examination of the budget line is closed. It is the opposition's responsibility to manage their own time. The allowed time having expired, I declare the examination of the Premier complete. Examination of the proposed payments will continue on Tuesday. The proposed payments for the Auditor-General are complete.

Sitting suspended from 11:15 to 11:30.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT