HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Department of State Development, $479,748,000

Administered Items for the Department of State Development, $23,810,000


Membership:

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

Mr Basham substituted for Mr Patterson.


Minister:

Hon. S.E. Close, Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy.


Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Reid, Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr A. Dunbar, Executive Director, Industry, Innovation and Small Business, Department of State Development.

Mr C. Markwick, Executive Director, Workforce, Population and Migration, Department of State Development.

Ms D. Tembak, Executive Director, Portfolio Delivery, Department of State Development.

Ms K. Hunt, Director, Higher and International Education, Department of State Development.

Ms L. Newstead, Director, Population Strategy and Migration, Department of State Development.

Mr M. Smith, Director, Finance and Investment Services, Department of State Development.


The CHAIR: Welcome back to today's estimates committee hearing. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition just confirm that is the case?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The CHAIR: I remind members that 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. Briefly, I also advise that if the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2025. Members unable to complete their questions may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

The rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee but may supply them to the Chair for distribution. I will allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of up to 10 minutes, should they wish to do so. I now proceed to open the following lines: the Department of State Development and higher education. The minister is the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science and Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy. Minister, the floor is yours.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you, Chair. I will not be making an opening statement other than, as is my habit, to thank all of the public servants who work within the Department of State Development. They are exceptional to a person, and I am very grateful to be working with them.

I will introduce the people I am with. On my right is Andrew Dunbar, Executive Director, Industry, Innovation and Small Business. To my left is Adam Reid, who is the Chief Executive, and to his left is Callan Markwick, Executive Director, Workforce, Population and Migration. Behind me, I have Louisa Newstead, Director, Population Strategy and Migration and Diana Tembak, Executive Director, Portfolio Delivery. Behind them are Karen Hunt, Director, Higher and International Education and Martin Smith, Director, Finance and Investment Services.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have no opening statement but to thank the minister and her staff for the copious notes that go into these estimates; it really does beggar belief. To kick it off, I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 23, table 2.6, operating expenses. In the previous budget, the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science had a budget of $68 million for 2024-25. How was the 2024-25 estimated result calculated for the new Department of State Development?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Essentially this new version reflects the machinery of government changes with bringing in skills, investment and trade, and also some population from DPC. If you have any specific questions about elements of those, I am happy to turn to one of my advisers.

Mr WHETSTONE: Alright, a specific question would be: why are the departments operating expenses? Why have they been cut by $85 million in this year's budget?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is a feature of the reduction of time-limited programs or the coming to an end of time-limited programs. There might be some new time-limited programs that come into the agency, of course, over time, but that is why we have budgeted it that way. Some examples of those would be that there was support provided in 2024-25 for the Whyalla Emergency Response Package to support the Whyalla community through the Whyalla Business Creditor Assistance Scheme and the Small Local Business Support Grants program. There was also support to small business and not-for-profit organisations through 2024-25 for the Energy Efficiency Grants provided in round 2 of the Business Growth Fund. The Business Growth Fund was previously known as the Economic Development Fund.

There was also some time-limited funding through the Skilling Australians Fund and JobTrainer initiative and time-limited fee-free TAFE funding, including the construction and technology fund. As I say, as decisions are made over time, it may well be that others come back in and the final result is not as we estimate, but we have accounted for the end of programs that we know are coming to an end.

Mr WHETSTONE: Over the page, and just on the back of the operating expenses that are projected to decrease by $171.8 million over the forward estimates, you have explained the Whyalla Steelworks support package and the Business Growth Fund. Are there any other programs scheduled to stop operating within that time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will give some examples of some programs that are scheduled to come to an end. There is The Alternative graduate program. There are some small business programs that will come to an end. There are defence workforce programs that are scheduled to end. But, as I say, there will be others that will come in as decisions are made.

Mr WHETSTONE: Of those programs that are scheduled to end, are there any programs that will be extended?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not in the budget at present. That is why it is being reflected that way. It is just that I notice how we make decisions: events come up, we are allocated funds and we expend them. What we will tend to do is, as a program comes to an end, we will evaluate it to see whether it was worthwhile and then if we think it is something that is worth prolonging, we will put in an application through the budget process.

Mr WHETSTONE: I move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 79, ministerial office resources. Minister, are you granted ministerial office resources in your capacity as Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science or as Deputy Premier?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Department for Environment and Water is actually my funding agency for my ministerial and Deputy Premier responsibilities, so it may be that they have a more particular—I am not aware of the distinction between being minister and deputy, but perhaps we can ask that question when they are here.

Mr WHETSTONE: Under workforce summary, given that DSD is in a merger with four portfolios, why is the workforce projected to shrink by 15.3 FTEs from 2023-24, and is the department struggling to maintain its management across such a broad scope?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a combination of reasons: one is that for some of the time-limited programs, there are FTEs attached to those; the other is that as a bigger agency, when we have brought in other departments we have not necessarily taken all of their corporate overheads that were attached to the original host department, so we have not needed to take all of that from the other agency.

Mr WHETSTONE: Why is the department cutting a further 17 FTEs in this year's budget compared to last year's estimated result?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The decrease of 17.1 FTE from the 2024-25 estimated result to the state budget amount comprises a decrease of 3.8 FTE relating to the population growth strategy and The Alternative graduate program ending, so they were time-limited programs that came over; a decrease of 2.6 FTE through the Whyalla support package for grant administration; a decrease of 2 FTE for grant funding relating to the Energy Efficiency Grants to support small business and not-for-profit organisations through round 2 of the Business Growth Fund; and a decrease of 1 FTE due to funding for the wine export recovery program ending in 2024-25. There is also a net reduction in term-funded roles in 2025-26 of 6.7 FTE. It is, in some ways, all the same answer in different ways: that there are programs that come to an end.

Mr WHETSTONE: I understand. Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 80, under program net cost of services, the Industry, Innovation and Science program has overspent its service budget by nearly $1 million. Can you give me an understanding of what the $1 million blowout was?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Under the defence workforce plan we proposed a Degree Apprenticeship Pilot program and the commonwealth provided an additional $1 million dollars for that and so we have a million dollars extra of income and a million dollars extra of expenditure due to that program.

Mr WHETSTONE: This year's budget increases the program services cost by $2.5 million. What is that increase going towards?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is in fact a reduction in income, coming from the end of the Degree Apprenticeship Pilot. So the million that came in is for the next year. The other relates to the Population Growth Strategy that came over from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet coming to an end as well, so it is just a drop in the income.

Mr WHETSTONE: As of this year's budget, the Industry, Innovation and Science program will have increased its cost of services by over $15 million. Has the program undertaken additional services or has the cost of the current services increased?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is largely explained by an increase of some $19 million in grants and subsidies, of which $10 million a year is the money going through to Adelaide University for attracting international students. There is also some additional expenditure under the Research and Innovation Fund due to the timing of the commitments that we are making and some additional expenditure in the Degree Apprenticeship and Defence Industry Connection programs which are funded. There are both carryover and also additional expenditure funded by the commonwealth government in 2024-25.

Mr WHETSTONE: Under outputs, what industry policies and programs are planned and what is the timeline for each of them?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are a number of examples. I am just working out the best way to answer the question so that you can choose what you would like to explore more. One is the advanced manufacturing strategy, another is the defence supply chain uplift work that we were talking about in parliament a couple of weeks ago, where we have the partnership with Huntington Ingalls on assisting our defence supply chain to gain accreditation to supply into the American Virginia class manufacture. We have put in an additional $5 million, I think it is, over the next two years for that. So there are a number of examples of work, but there might be a particular area that you are more interested in—this is cyber work.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, what evaluation process do you use to ensure that the goals of these programs and policies will be met?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The way in which we ensure that we evaluate appropriately will vary. Obviously, when we have grants there are KPIs embedded in those agreements and the organisation that receives the grant is required to acquit their funding against those KPIs, but every so often we will also bring someone in to do a more thorough investigation of whether our approach is fit for purpose in serving the state. For example, we used Göran Roos recently to go through the Research Innovation Fund (RIF), to look at all of it and see if the settings were right for where we are now in the economy. That is a more root and branch, 'Is this the right approach that we have?' as opposed to the individual grants, where we will measure against the agreement that was entered into and the KPIs that were expected to be attained.

Mr WHETSTONE: Has the government increased its collaboration with science and research this financial year and, if so, what are the organisations?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: While we have a quick look at that, can I correct something. I should never imagine that I remember things without double-checking with people. I said that there was about $5 million over the next two years for the defence supply uplift—it's actually $3.3 million, just to correct the record immediately.

In addition to the collaboration that we have with the CSIRO, with the NCRIS facilities, we also have 10 CRCs that we are collaborating on. There is the SMART CRC; Additive Manufacturing; SAAFE; One Basin; Marine Bioproducts; HILT, which is the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition CRC; the Reliable Affordable Clean Energy for 2030 CRC; SmartSat CRC; Future Battery Industries; and Fight Food Waste CRC. There are 10 that we are actively engaged in. The numbers of individual research partnerships will vary year by year, and we always do our best to estimate in advance what they are likely to be, but it is a reasonably steady state.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, will the government commit to collaborating with more organisations in regional South Australia to improve the gaps in STEM and the regional retention?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are always open to collaborating with good research programs that will have a benefit for South Australia. There are research efforts that are done through PIRSA that, as you would well be aware, are regionally located. I would like to highlight though that the new university's commitment to retaining regional presence—and, if anything, expanding—is very important. The idea that students and researchers can be geographically around South Australia and yet have access to the high-quality infrastructure that the university has in its possession will be very useful, and we will be open to seeing whether there are ways in which we can aid that. Obviously, the really big research support, the commitment that we made to the new university to assist it in getting off the ground, will assist that.

Mr WHETSTONE: With the expenditure summary, has the state workforce planning project been completed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The workforce planning is an ongoing and evolving effort. Workforce has always been part of industry policy, of course. It is an element of how industry works, that you have the appropriately trained and available workforce. It has become a more acute and high priority area as we have all seen a skills shortage in particular areas, and also as we are facing this demographic shift of the number of people who are retiring and also going into aged care, which is really transforming the available workforce proportion of our population. Recognising that those challenges are not going to go away, we have increased our effort to do thoughtful workforce planning, hence the addition of the title, and also greater effort within the department.

Some of that workforce planning has occurred specific to individual industries, whether that be defence or health, of course working significantly with the relevant agencies. Some of it has been regionally located, so looking at what workforce planning looks like in the Upper Spencer Gulf, which is in fact a moving feast as we see conditions change there. All of that workforce planning is essentially getting the baseline data of understanding what the requirements are in individual qualifications—also experience, because obviously you do not have an entire industry stocked with apprentices; you need to have people at different levels in their career—and when they will likely be required. Having determined that, we are then looking at the various instruments that the state has available to it to intervene, to be better prepared.

The three big instruments are, first of all and most importantly, that we have our education system lined up in the right way so that we are educating from a young age and training people into the professions that will have employment waiting for them. Alongside that is the role that skilled migration plays in bringing people in to fill gaps, and doing that in a strategic and thoughtful way. There is also the one that we do not talk about so much, which is working smarter, the way in which we can ensure that we are integrating the latest technology and the most efficient approach so that we are not overly reliant on finding workers who are not available to do the work but are able to do as much as possible using that application of technology.

Having those three approaches, what the workforce planning then does is to say, 'What interventions are there at different times?' If you think chronologically in a worker's life, are we lining up early childhood well enough? Are the schools preparing people in the right ways? Are vocational training and university education appropriately funded and directed? But also how do we direct and support people who might be shifting careers so that they have allied skills? Would they be able to work easily in that particular area, such as in defence, and where do we bring in the skilled migrants?

That is the guts of what a workforce plan looks like. The intention is not that we have a workforce plan or strategy for South Australia and there it is, now everything will be fine. It is more that dynamic, constant interaction of determining whether we are aware of what is required and are we advising on the right interventions, many of which are in this department, but not all.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, can you please clarify what the $676,000 in an annual investing program is?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The investing, or what is often otherwise known as capital investment, by this department is in fact in IT infrastructure. There is some associated with Tauondi as part of the skills portfolio, but mostly it is digital infrastructure upgrades and refresh of IT equipment. That is the way to describe it. It is not a significant amount but it is necessary. Sorry, the other one I was looking for was the workforce planning platform that gives us the capability to really crunch the numbers of what is anticipated and when, rather than taking an Excel spreadsheet—a magnificent application though it is—and stretching it beyond its limits.

Mr WHETSTONE: On page 82, under highlights, how many South Australian suppliers were successfully contracted through the ICNSA introductions in 2024-25, and what was the estimated value of those contracts?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As at 30 May 2025, so the 2024-25 year until 30 May, ICNSA facilitated $151.9 million in contracts in South Australian suppliers across defence, mining, infrastructure, construction and energy sectors for 87 work packages awarded to 67 companies.

Mr WHETSTONE: Are any suppliers still contracted in relation to the hydrogen energy and, if so, when are their contracts expected to end?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not certain as to the level of detail that we hold, but I will take it on notice and provide anything that we have on that.

Mr COWDREY: I turn to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 84, particularly the dot point in regard to the university merger and the $10 million allocation. In the Budget and Finance Committee earlier in the year, evidence was provided by the two universities in regard to the use of that money. In particular, they were happy to talk about the categories of spend but not necessarily the quantum of money that was provided. Are you able to outline for the committee the process that is involved? As I understand it, the department is in some way looking over and acquitting those funds, but can you give us an idea of what exactly that process entails?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our role is to manage the contract for the $10 million a year for three years for supporting the attraction of international students. Obviously part of the business case proposition for the new university in its early days was to make sure that it did not go backwards in the esteem in which the existing two universities are held by international students and therefore that they did not lose market share.

Pleasingly, you may have heard the news today that they have just been listed, or recognised as 82nd in the world rankings for next year for the new university, and it is very pleasing to continue to have a top 100 university. There was some uncertainty about whether, in its initial bringing together of the existing two, they would be able to sustain that level. It was certainly an ambition to get there, but the fact is that they have been able to convince the rankers already that that is the case. I mention that in this context, because international students pay a lot of attention to the rankings and they are important.

The contract that we manage requires the new university to develop an annual activity plan, which includes a budget and marketing and engagement plan and they need to acquit that each year with us. The annual report for the first funding period has been received. They expended $9.9 million of the grant, which means that there will be $100,000 that will be rolled over into funding period two.

The first tranche of funding was used to support the costs and development and delivery of the international brand and marketing campaign in priority markets. There were seven offshore launch events across India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China. There were three launch events for onshore international education agents in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. There was also the development of marketing collateral for international markets, social media content undertaking market insights and testing, and also delivering training to international education agents in order to make sure that they understand well what it is that they are selling or connecting people to in the new university. All of that work has been undertaken and we have received that report.

Mr COWDREY: So no local advertising was paid for with the $10 million?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No. That is right.

Mr COWDREY: So the advertising on trains and trams, none of that work was paid for by the South Australian government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is not what this grant line is for; it is for international students. Of course, it is the same branding so it might be difficult to disentangle some of the detail, but this was explicitly for the kind of effort that I have just described. We would not have paid for logos on buses in South Australia.

Mr COWDREY: Or billboards—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As an example.

Mr COWDREY: —or any other advertising?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Exactly. That is not what this was for; this was for international student marketing.

Mr COWDREY: And you are certain of that: not a single cent of the money that has been provided has been spent on advertising in local markets on billboards, on trams or on any local advertising?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Their acquittal does not suggest that that has occurred.

Mr COWDREY: I take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, highlights: again in the same vein talking about the university merger. The government has appointed an independent adviser, Professor Emeritus Ian O'Connor AC, with the creation of the new university. To this point, it has not been publicly clear what his role entails, the level of commitment and the work that is being undertaken. Are you able to please provide an understanding to the committee of what is entailed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor O'Connor for the work that he has put in for us. It is quite a commitment, because he is coming over here frequently, and the fact that he enjoys such a strong reputation across the higher education sector and enjoys good relations through the universities in South Australia is absolutely essential in his role. We went through a procurement process to appoint him. He was one of the people who was identified as being appropriate and he was the first choice for us.

There was a total budget allocation of $500,000 for that consultancy to occur. The fee that has been paid from April 2024 to April 2025 has been about $174,000. He provides independent advice to the South Australian government on the progress of implementation, measurement and achievement of the proposed economic benefits, possible impacts on staff and, crucially, risk management measures. He meets monthly with key university staff, with our staff and with myself. He also occasionally meets with the Premier.

The risk management measures are of most importance to us. Although the university is an independent organisation, we are nonetheless not only providing a significant amount of money that will have its own acquittal processes but also needing, as a state, to see this new university work. We need it to succeed. Having someone working closely on looking at the ways in which the transition is being managed and identifying risks and discussing them has been very important.

Professor O'Connor had long tenure as Vice Chancellor and President of Griffith University. He was also the President of the Academic Board at the University of Queensland and has been Chair of the Higher Education Standards Panel and Deputy Chair of Trade and Investment Queensland. As I say, he is very well known across the higher education sector—and not only known as a very good academic and an excellent academic leader and administrator but also known as a really decent person. It was important to us that we have someone who is well respected and whose personality would mean that we would have decent, respectful but knowledgeable conversations. I have been very pleased with the work that he has done.

Mr COWDREY: In your answer, you mentioned that he is preparing reports around the achievement of the economic benefit that is expected from the university. Are those reports being released publicly?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not that he is preparing reports, it is that that is one of the factors that he is keeping an eye on as part of his discussions and his advice to us.

Mr COWDREY: Are any formal documents being prepared?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, he is not providing written documents. He is providing advice and guidance.

Mr COWDREY: So he is providing verbal updates. He is not preparing any modelling; he is not preparing any documentation for you at all? All advice is being provided verbally to the government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I believe so. Certainly, my experience has been that it has been verbal. When I say it is important that we understand the economic benefits, they will largely be realised over time. That is one of the factors that is important for him to appreciate, why we are so invested in making sure that this new university stands up well and, of course, why I am so pleased it is already in the top 100 and has been listed in the Group of Eight, which is absolutely essential. That is one of the factors that he pays attention to, but that is one that we are much more likely to see evolve over time rather than one that is a clear and present issue for him. Once the new university is in place, we will no longer need to have him in that role.

Mr COWDREY: How does the government ascertain the value of the advice that is being provided by Professor O'Connor if there is no recording of the advice that is being provided, if there are no formal documents or reports that are being prepared or any minutes being taken of the advice that is being provided?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not sure that putting something in writing is necessarily a measure of the quality of the advice. What is important is that we have someone. As excellent and well credentialed and experienced as the department staff are with universities—and I would like to single out Karen Hunt for the role that she has played—nonetheless, the way that universities work is very complex and quite individual. There are no other organisations that are similar to universities.

So although we have very good staff who are operating both from Treasury and from DSD in connecting with the university, it seemed to us that an extra layer of someone who really understands how universities need to operate and the risks that they run in changing anything—and of course, much is being changed in the creation of the new university—would be well placed to sit alongside and have the conversations at a level of complexity that we might otherwise miss. He has performed that.

I recently was part of a conversation between the vice-chancellors and the federal minister, and they just dropped in that context how useful they had found it to have him raising questions and approaches that might be useful. It is one of those highly specific roles that you would not easily see replicated in any other government action, partly on the basis that they are an independent organisation but doing something of such enormous significance to the economic future of the state.

We had allocated funding initially for a commissioner, because the initial plan had been that, rather than imposing a merger on two universities despite our firm view that one would be of benefit to the state, we would have a commissioner who would interrogate the question of what the higher education landscape might best look like in South Australia. Having initiated the idea on coming into government and signalled very strongly our interest in seeing something happen in higher education as a very significant micro-economic reform piece, we then had, as was not completely unanticipated, two of the universities signalling that they wished to form a new university.

We therefore did not need a commissioner, but we had a budget allocation. Ian had been, in my mind, a stand-out possibility to be the commissioner because of his very well-respected position in the world of higher education. It seemed to me that we would be well served by having someone of his calibre simply adding a level of scrutiny, question and guidance, and that has been my experience.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, with all due respect, how does the department itself capture and record the risk? You have just said that they do not, that there is no documentation that is recorded through any of the meetings or any reports provided by Professor O'Connor.

There appears to be a pattern emerging with major projects in our state. We had an Auditor-General's report handed down yesterday in this chamber in regard to the proton therapy debacle, as I think we can call it now, where the Auditor-General outlined that the cross-government working group in regard to that particular project had not met for three years nor had minutes been recorded because there were no meetings.

This is a project of state significance. You have what you have described as an eminent individual who has significant experience across the university sector. Your evidence to the committee today is that you are paying this person a significant amount of money, which I think is justified given his credentials. But your evidence to the committee is that he is identifying risks but they are not being recorded, he is identifying recommendations but they are not being recorded. How is that a sensible approach for a government bureaucracy to identify these things, to have them highlighted but then not be recording them anywhere, actioning them anywhere?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand the direction of the questions, but I think it is probably coming from not recognising fully the way in which the creation of the new university is being risk-managed by the new university.

There is a significant effort being put in by the Transition Council and the two vice-chancellors in documenting and addressing everything that they are doing. That is being done exhaustively and diligently. We, on the other hand, as a government, have identified some funding that we have committed to providing, and the requirements of how that funding is expended and the acquittal of that is all documented.

This is separate to those processes and is not necessary or part of the governance structure. Those exist and are being diligently applied. It is an addition of having someone who can come in every so often and check in and have the conversations with those people who are involved, including the Chancellor of the Transition Council, including the two vice-chancellors and then myself, to just provide an extra layer of suggestion. It is not a governance instrument in the same way that an acquittal of a grant is, which is being done, nor a change management program, which is being done extensively, nor indeed any kind of investment that might be being made; for example, in reference to the proton therapy unit. It is not of the same nature, because those are being acquitted and those are being done and documented in the way that would be expected.

This is an additional person who can help bring to light some issues. Now I say that; there has not been any significant risk that has been identified either through that process or I believe through the university's processes. There is simply a constant management of making sure that everyone is aware of what could happen and that there are contingency measures in place.

Obviously the most complex, in some ways, of the creation of the university is IT because IT always seems to be immensely complex no matter who is doing it. Having conversations about ways in which that is being managed, understanding that there are contingencies in place should new systems not be ready is just an additional layer. It is like if I were having conversations with people all day and somehow that they become different if I am annotating them and producing a report. It is not necessary because all of that diligent infrastructure exists. It is just an extra layer that we have decided would add value.

Mr COWDREY: I do not doubt the minister's capability to recall facts, but I do often find it more helpful if I write something down and then I can refer to it later and have a chronological understanding of the recommendations that were made, the risks that were raised, to then look back on.

In terms of the engagement itself, again, while the minister has tried to say that there is a clear contrast between the two projects—the proton therapy and the Adelaide University merger—one could easily argue that the projects and the outcomes are both significant. In the proton therapy case, it was an external party that was the contract provider through SAHMRI, as opposed to the government directly engaging.

Again, I do not wish to linger on this issue, but I do think that it is reasonably important both in the broader context of risks that have been identified and the recommendations that have been made. Has Professor O'Connor provided any recommendations to you as minister, and if he has done so, has that been done verbally or in writing?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have not asked him to produce recommendations; what we have asked for is his insight. We have conversations about what he is seeing and the nature of the issues that are currently occurring with the creation of the new university. He is offering his insight as much to the chancellor and the two vice-chancellors as he is to me.

It is simply an additional, very experienced brain saying, 'Have you thought about this? What's happening with that?' and then coming to me and saying, 'They are addressing the transition of the staff onto the new payroll; this is their approach to making sure that everyone gives their tax file number'—because one employer cannot take the tax file number of all their people and give it to a new employer, which meant this little complexity of having to ask all the staff, even though they were essentially continuing in their jobs, to provide their tax file number—'this is the way that that is occurring and it worked smoothly.' So they are not, by nature, recommendations that we have asked for. If we asked for a report with recommendations, I am certain he would be more than capable of doing it, but that is not the role that he is playing.

Mr COWDREY: So you do not see a circumstance where you will ask for formal advice from him in writing at any point?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is hard to forecast and be certain, but that is not the role that I see him playing, at this stage.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 83, targets—again, in regard to looking at the university merger. Very quickly in the time that remains, I want to investigate ancillary services such as university sport, in particular. The Adelaide Blacks: is that brand going to remain?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not know, and it is not quite within our purview to be responsible to the chamber about that, but I can seek information that the university might choose to share. I do understand, though, that there has been an enormous amount of work on lining up the sporting teams and that the progress on that has been very positive. There is a deputy vice-chancellor student experience who has been leading some of that work and I believe that has gone very well, but I do not know the specifics of the branding of that particular club.

Mr COWDREY: As I understand it, again, the department itself did not prepare a business case for the merger—it is my understanding that it was simply the business case from the universities handed over—so there was no independent verification of that business case in terms of preparation of a government-produced business case. Noting that, are you able to confirm for us whether any further rationalisation of university accommodation, in addition to the Magill and Mawson Lakes sites that have been identified prior to this, was part of that business case?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to situate this a bit, while we were in opposition during the Marshall government there was a view formed between those two universities that they would merge, and then that came to an end. That could have continued at that point; it is a decision that universities are capable of making. They are organisations that depend heavily, particularly, on federal funding but also on external funding. They are not, other than the legislation, funding creatures of this state government. Therefore, they are entitled to prepare a business plan and make a business decision on what they want to do.

Our responsibility is to make sure that any funding that we provide to any organisation, including universities, has a strong rationale, the right KPIs and the appropriate acquittal, and that has been occurring. I am not aware of any changes to accommodation that the new university is contemplating, but that is fundamentally their business. They are welcome to come and talk to government about any plans that they have in expanding accommodation; for example, they have made pleasing statements about their desire to remain and, in fact, expand in the regions.

We have to keep in mind that we are not the university—it is its own institution—but because of the immense economic significance of not just the education but also the research that is undertaken, it is important that we pay close attention in a way that means that we are aware of what is occurring.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of State Development completed. Administered Items for the Department of State Development are referred to Estimates Committee B. I thank the minister and her advisers and the opposition.

Sitting suspended from 12:16 to 13:15.


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