Estimates: Science and Information Economy DSD (2016)


DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT, $672,950,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT, $10,448,000

 

Minister:

Hon. K.J. Maher, Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy.

Membership:

Mr Gardner substituted for Mr Wingard.

 

Departmental Advisers:

Dr D. Russell, Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Dr P. Heithersay, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of State Development.

Mr A. Reid, Executive Director, Industry and Innovation, Department of State Development.

Mr R. Janssan, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Department of State Development.

Ms P. Chau, Director, Finance, Department of State Development.

Mr A. Dunbar, Director, Office of Science, Technology and Research, Department of State Development.

 

The CHAIR: Do you want to do the omnibus questions for this minister now or later? Would you like to do that now?

Mr KNOLL: I reckon I have it down to around 65 seconds. The omnibus questions are:

1.Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2.In financial year 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2016-17?

3.For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances, as well as non-salary benefits, paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

4.For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, and for 2015‑16 provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant, the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

5.For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the corporate overhead costs allocated to each individual program and subprogram administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

6.For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a)How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2015‑16?

(b)Which department funded these TVSPs?

(c)What number of TVSPs was funded?

(d)What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how these packages are to be funded?

7.What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2016, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I must say I am quite disappointed with this questions.

The CHAIR: No need for that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The member indicated 65 seconds, but it was much closer to 90 seconds—a 50 per cent increase.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Morialta have a question?

Mr GARDNER: This is an area of course where we wish the government every success in its endeavours as it works with South Australia's industry and scientists to try to get some good outcomes. It is one where traditionally partisanship has not tended to overrun the celebration we make at the successes of our scientific researchers and the ways in which government can assist them. That said, there are some issues.

The budget line in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 70 to 73, seems to be most of this part of the portfolio. Is this where we would deal with questions related to the commonwealth Mobile Black Spot Program?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, if the budget line is in there, certainly.

Mr GARDNER: Out of the total expenses listed here, what engagement has the government had in the last 12 months or last financial year with the commonwealth Mobile Black Spot Program and what is anticipated for the year ahead?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for the question. We do not have engagement directly with the commonwealth. It is the mobile operators we deal with in terms of where they might place potential mobile towers. There has been an extensive process that the department has been involved with and discussions with those mobile operators. They put forward their preferred locations. The state government puts forward any funding that the state government might supply and then it is the commonwealth who decides where any mobile towers under that program might go.

The South Australian government has contributed $2 million to this current round of that mobile blackspot funding. We do note that telecommunications has always been the province of the commonwealth who funds these programs. We did see, though that, in the last round of mobile blackspot funding, the Tasmanian government provided $325,000 and received 31 mobile blackspots funded through the program. We have provided $2 million, some six times what Tasmania did under the last round, for this round, so we will be expecting substantial returns on the amount that we have provided under this round of the Mobile Black Spot Program.

Mr GARDNER: When are we expecting to hear from that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was due to be in September. Of course, we had a federal election that intervened. It had been around September, but we have had a couple of months off in the longest federal election campaign we have seen, so I am happy to go away and check if that has affected, as it can do, the time frames for these programs.

Mr GARDNER: How much did we contribute to the first round?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The South Australian government, recognising that telecommunications is a commonwealth responsibility, did not contribute to the first round. We received funding for 11 mobile blackspots in that first round. Off the top of my head, five or six of them were across the APY lands, which currently only has one of the major communities that has mobile coverage, and the others were spread throughout South Australia. If for no money we get 11, for $2 million we should get dozens and dozens of blackspots funded, particularly given that Tasmania, at $325,000, received 31. We are putting in some six times that amount, so we would quite rightly and reasonably expect significant mobile blackspots to be funded in this state.

Mr GARDNER: I assume that Tasmanian allocation you are talking about was in the first round?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed. To complete that, I would hope—and I think all of us involved in public administration in South Australia would expect—that we would be treated no worse than Tasmania was treated in round 1.

Mr GARDNER: Forgive me if I misheard—I just have a bit of a cold— but in your earlier answer you talked about working directly with the telecommunications companies. Were you talking about the amount that the state government would be putting in, or were you actually talking about identifying locations the state government was seeking to have supported?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a very convoluted process in terms of how it is dealt with. We talked to the telecommunication companies about the amount that we could put in and about priority areas and then they decide what they want to fund and they forward that to the commonwealth, who then makes a decision.

Mr GARDNER: With the input from the state government, in terms of the locations, is it the earliest part and that goes to the companies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At some stage along the process, and I understand there is quite a bit going back and forth. That is very early stage, but the process at the end is that those telecommunication companies put in their funding to the commonwealth government.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, you cite the Tasmanian example quite often. Can you confirm for the committee that the Tasmanian government had the smallest coefficient or the smallest co-investment per tower of any state that was awarded towers? What I am trying to get at is the fact that Tasmania, for their $300,000-odd that you talk about, got 30-odd towers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: Can you confirm that, at $30,000 per tower, that is the lowest level of funding provided per tower by a government when compared to the rest of the states in Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are differences in what a government puts up and what the telecommunications companies end up putting up to the commonwealth as to what is allocated, so I could not tell you the amount that Tasmania were prepared to allocate, but it is a good point. Certainly at $30,000 per tower, if we put in $3 million we would expect 100, so at $2 million, if you take it at $30,000 per tower, we could reasonably expect that $2 million divided by 30 is the number we should get in South Australia. I think that is a very good point to have made.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, my point, minister, is that Tasmania is very much an outlier when it comes to this. The government co-investment provided to telecommunications companies across the rest of the country was far greater per tower than it was in Tasmania. To cite the Tasmanian example is quite disingenuous in this context.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think so. It varied throughout Australia. I would expect the federal government to treat us no worse than they treated Tasmania in round 1.

Mr KNOLL: Except, minister, you said it was the fact that you are dealing with telecommunications companies directly, as opposed to going to the federal government. So, in fact, it is about how much your state government is willing to co-invest with telecommunications companies and their willingness to put money on the table, as opposed to anything the federal government—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is all part of it, but—

Mr KNOLL: —because certainly it is done on a contestable basis—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —at the end of the day, it is up to the federal government as to what they back and what they do. I do not want people to have any mistake here: it is up to the federal government to decide, at the end of the day, where these go. We would expect the federal government to treat South Australia no worse than they treated Tasmania in the last round. I do not think that is unreasonable. I think it is a proposition most people could agree with.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, do you understand that this federal Mobile Black Spot Program funding is done on a contestable return-on-investment basis?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is done in terms of what the telecommunications companies end up putting up to the federal government, and then the federal government decides which ones of those to back.

Mr GARDNER: Wrapping up on this area from my point of view, unless any of my colleagues have further questions, I want to go back to the issue of talking to the companies about which spots to put forward. My understanding, previously from briefings with the minister, who was kind enough to spend some time with me, is that there was a priority list that was developed in consultation with RDAs and local government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Absolutely. In looking at what was supported, we certainly took into account the views of local government, RDA, emergency services and tourism operators on what areas they see as priorities.

Mr GARDNER: Who was responsible for putting together that final priority list that you then went off and discussed with the companies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government took in the views of those, and I think there might have been others I have mentioned, to then put them forward to the telecommunications operators.

Mr GARDNER: Was that a list identified by officers in the department and then taken by you, I guess with or without cabinet support, or was that something workshopped with you and your office and the officers of the department? How much involvement was there from outside just the departmental officers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The departmental officers sought the views and got the information from, I think, the RDA, tourism, emergency services and others, to feed that in to what were priorities to then talk to the telecommunications companies about. I am also informed that as part of that there is a national database of eligible sites that can be considered. I am informed that the national database came down to 102 priority areas in South Australia.

Mr GARDNER: Those 102 priorities in South Australia, they are the ones the department presented to you as the minister and you gave it a tick?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, a large part of what was discussed with telecommunications operators was that information from RDAs, tourism and a whole lot of other groups.

Mr GARDNER: But there were no changes to that list that came forward after the department presented it to you?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know that there were quite a lot of discussions between departments. Certainly, it had been discussed with me which of those 102 priority sites would go forward. There was a whole range of reasons for those to go forward; a lot was based on the views of RDAs and others; other things were based on external advice we sought in terms of what were more likely to get up. Of course, you want to give yourself the best possible chance of using that money to have sites that may have the best possible chance of getting up.

Mr GARDNER: What sort of external advice are you talking about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We had a consultant, who had previously been involved in advising the Western Australian government in round 1, advise us on looking at the strategies to maximise the amount that we were putting in for round 2.

Mr GARDNER: Can we get the details of that consultancy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I do not have them with me, but I am more than happy to take that away and bring back the details of that consultancy—and the cost of that consultancy I presume the honourable member would appreciate.

Mr GARDNER: We will go to page 72 in terms of the targets for working with school education, higher education, VET and STEM skills-based industry sectors to produce strategic reform priority initiatives that will encourage South Australians to pursue high value employment opportunities. I am particularly interested in the work that you are doing in the STEM area with the school education issues.

I note there is also a performance indicator in terms of STEM students. I have a couple of questions in this area. The 2013-14 year listed 11,200 students. In this paper, it lists 11,200 students in 2014-15 and a drop to 11,012, which is an estimated result, so when the actual comes out that may or may not be an issue. Has there been any analysis done from the science side of things on this portfolio line into why those numbers are not increasing to match the targets that are being set? What involvement and what engagement has this sub-program had in the education department's STEM strategy that they are working on?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There have been slight variations in the numbers across the years mentioned. There are always fluctuations in numbers in relation to this. I am not aware and I do not have information about whether there is a particular driving reason, but if there is one that we can identify, I am happy to bring that back. I can inform the member that the South Australian Chief Scientist works very closely with education and schools in terms of implementing STEM programs to encourage studies in STEM.

The CHAIR: Before we have our next question, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the presence of a group of students from Grant High and welcome them to parliament today. They are guests of the member for Mount Gambier, with their teacher in tow. We hope you have a good time with us today. It is our estimates committee and I am sure that will be explained to you.

Mr GARDNER: I hope that many of them will be inspired by this to go off and study STEM subjects and have excellent careers in science.

The CHAIR: They will have no choice, will they?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I hope to see many of the students from Grant High, which is the high school I attended, go on to great things as well.

The CHAIR: Welcome.

Mr GARDNER: Welcome to them all.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As well as the rest of them, not me.

Mr GARDNER: They have an excellent local member of parliament in Troy Bell. As to the chief scientist's role you just mentioned in relation to STEM strategy that the education department is undertaking, I assume that the chief scientist is employed. Is she one of the FTEs in this subprogram or is her arrangement separate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not in relation to this sub-program. The Chief Scientist certainly comes under the auspices within the machinery of government of the department that we are talking about, but her FTE is not attributed against the STEM program.

Mr GARDNER: That is fine, I appreciate that. I have no issues there. What I am interested in, though, is apart from the Chief Scientist who obviously fits within this department, is there any other engagement in that STEM strategy from officers who work in this department for you, as the Minister for Science?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is. My advisers are nodding furiously that there is further engagement, so I suspect that some of them are actually engaged, but to make sure it is accurate, I will take that on notice to provide a more accurate response about the level of engagement various officers in my department have in this with the education department in relation to this.

Mr GARDNER: One of the highlights listed is:

Delivered the Defence and STEM internship program and developed a number of STEM policy strategic reform priorities to address systemic issues with STEM education and career pathways.

What are those reform priorities? This was a highlight from the financial year just concluded, so I assume that the STEM policy strategic reform priorities have indeed been developed. What are those priorities and what are the systemic issues that were identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that these are programs that are in discussion with the education department. They are looking to be implemented. I am happy to provide the member with information about those programs once they are implemented.

Mr GARDNER: The identification is that this is an education department project that is not yet at the point of being announced and that you will provide us the information when it is?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I will check on its status and provide information. I will also undertake to provide information not just on the status now but on its implementation. The member can feel free to ask me questions outside the estimates process, as he has in the past, and as I am more than prepared to continue to answer.

Mr GARDNER: I have an interesting question about the accounting side of things. Page 70, under income, sales of goods and services, states $2,000 in 2014, budgeted for $1,000 last year but estimated at being at $5,000. I think actually if we go the year before, in 2013‑14 there was $30,000 income. These are not the largest numbers in the world, but why is that area so jumpy? How come that is jumping around so much? What sales of goods and services are being undertaken?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that one on notice. I have had a chat with my departmental advisers who, for numbers that are about $1,000, have not provided a brief on these.

Mr GARDNER: It was $30,000 just two years ago, minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am sure they will diligently spend time hunting down what that $1,000 relates to.

Mr GARDNER: Is there a discontinued line of minister Maher merchandise or something?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That may be a valuable spend, but probably not from this department or any government department for minister Maher merchandise.

Mr GARDNER: We expect these estimated results, the actuals, are provided in the Mid‑Year Budget Review. Can I ask you perhaps to take on notice, unless you have them here, that the actuals on pages 70, 72 and 73 be provided when they are available?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and see when they can be provided.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to the FTEs listed on page 70—it is listed as 29, but I appreciate that is just an estimation based on Treasury's budget allocation—can we get a list of what the actual FTEs were as at 30 June 2015 and 30 June this year as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can take that on notice. I do not have those figures in front of me, but I am happy to bring back replies for those.

Mr GARDNER: In doing that, can we possibly get the roles of those FTEs—how many are scientists, how are many bureaucrats or doing other policy roles?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can see how well we can break it down into such categories.

Mr GARDNER: At the top of page 71, we have this helpful little (a), identifying:

The 2015-16 Budget amounts contained in the 2016-17 Agency Statements differ from those amounts contained in the 2015-16 Agency Statements to reflect internal resource allocat ions for each program. The 2015  16 Budget amounts in these statements have been amended for comparative purposes.

What is the basis of that internal resource reallocation? Are there more department resources being spent in this area, or is it just a change in the accounting methodology?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am informed that it is not a change in the overall amount. It is a rebasing of the expenditure within those years and may reflect—it is certainly something we talked a lot about earlier today in estimates committees—machinery of government changes and how they are reflected. I am happy to take that on notice and see what information can be provided.

Mr GARDNER: As the member for Bragg identified before, and as the minister identified, the grants will come out in the omnibus question set. In previous years in this area, we have been able to go a little more specific in terms of grans under the bioscience industry development—or is it the Premier's Research and Industry Fund? Are we able to get a list of grants specific to those funds?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is that the $12.201 million? The specific grants that comprise those funds?

Mr GARDNER: On page 73, there is $6.6 million allocated for the Premier's Research and Industry Fund.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can provide some information on that if that would be of some help. The Premier's Research and Industry Fund—or as those in business call it, PRIF; so, if you are talking to your friends about PRIF, they will know exactly what you mean—

Mr GARDNER: If only the Grant High School students were still here.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It aims to support the South Australian research community to successfully compete on a national and global scale. The funding allocated in 2015-16 was $6.6 million. During 2015-16, $290,100 was committed over two years to six Innovation Voucher Program projects, leveraging $395,216 of partner funds. An additional $792,000 was invested in projects and initiatives supporting the Investing in Science Action Plan. During 2015-16, $4.33 million was spent on existing programs that have been committed to in previous funding rounds for PRIF and $976,350 was spent on new projects committed.

Round 1 of the Research Consortia Program was launched on 31 March 2016. Funding for up to $1 million per annum for four years, with 50 per cent matching subsidies and in-kind contributions for partners, will fund significant research collaborations between universities, other research organisations, government and industry to tackle critical strategic challenges aligned with the state's economic priorities. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, one of those (the Centre for Cancer Biology) was launched at the University of South Australia only a few months ago, and we both attended. I note that the member for Morialta was referred to as the minister at the launch of that program.

I think that one is under the Research Consortia Program grants under PRIF. That is expenditure from 2015-16. There are further individual contributions from PRIF that I am happy to go through, rather than spend what would be the rest of the time for this committee—which I am exceptionally tempted to do. I am happy to bring some of those back, but that is the major spending from the Premier's Research and Industry Fund.

Mr GARDNER: Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on behalf of the University of South Australia people concerned.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I think it was someone from the Singaporean university who was over here. They were maybe doing that wishful thinking.

Mr GARDNER: It is almost as if it has been on your mind. On that, there is $6.6 million allocated in 2015-16—that is the estimated result, at any rate—which is a lower number this year, at $5.7 million. Is there any particular reason for the drop of nearly $1 million in this area?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is an estimated result. I think that might fall into—when I can reasonably bring back the final results, I will have reasons for that.

Mr GARDNER: The actual result in 2015-16 was $6.5 million. The projection last year was $5.9 million and the projection this year is $5.7 million. I see this is listed as a projection rather than a budget, per se, so it could well be quite different in the end.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once we have actuals, as soon as I reasonably can I am happy to come back and look at how it ended up and the reasons for that.

Mr GARDNER: We will go to the page before, value of grants provided by companies. Again, this is one where ministers have been able to—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Page?

Mr GARDNER: It is page 72. The second to bottom line states that $1.7 million was provided directly to companies last year. I am wondering whether, when the result for all those grants comes in, we can disaggregate the grants in that section, or you can provide them if you want.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That $1.7 million is under BioSA, but I am happy to go away to BioSA and see what, through them, can be provided in relation to that.

Mr GARDNER: The line above that is in relation to projects assisted, projects undertaken by research organisations and companies. Above that is the number of new companies created. Can you explain who the new companies created are?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, this is within BioSA. I do not have the breakdown within BioSA, which does not sit within my department, but I am happy to go away and ask BioSA for those details and bring back an answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify something, as it might be helpful for next year, minister. Why do we have, under the performance indicators of your department, the performance of another department for which, as you said earlier, you are responsible but there is a separate provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a separate entity, but ministerially they do report to me, so that is why they sit within there.

Ms CHAPMAN: But did you not say that BioSA actually has a separate provision as an entity in the budget papers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is given a grant from the state government for part of its operations.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, sorry, I was at crossed purposes. Just like HomeStart and Renewal SA, they have a separate agency reference in the budget papers. I am happy to go and find them, but that is what I understood you said before, that BioSA has a separate reporting agency description somewhere in the budget papers, other than just these three or four indicators.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that this is how BioSA's operations are described in the budget papers.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is it? That is the only reference to it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The departmental adviser has informed me that that is where BioSA is described in the budget papers.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright, thank you.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to page 73, the first performance indicator is in relation to 'provisional patent applications filed by South Australian universities', with the estimated result of 27 for this year. Do we have any analysis of how many of those had an involvement in support from this state government funding and how many of those 27 patent applications this year is the government able to claim some level of parentage in?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can go back and check what we do have. As I said before, we have a range of programs right across our three universities in many diverse areas, from medical technologies to that of the advanced sensing area. We have made a significant investment in this budget of $7.5 million in the Future Industries Institute at the University of South Australia.

I suspect that in quite a number of these, when a patent is filed and there is a company spun out, it is not always going to be exceptionally clear to say that this was a direct result of this particular program. I am sure that, with the money the government has contributed towards the Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing at Adelaide University, on one method of accounting for it we could probably claim anything that has spun out of there because we contributed to that centre.

Other areas, I think, will be similarly difficult, but I am happy to go away and have a look at areas in which we have contributed to see what can be attributed. I suspect that there will be difficulties in saying that all this money was responsible directly for this particular spin-out or this particular piece of IP. I think one of the roles of government, and one of the roles we are very conscious of, is to encourage the environment that facilitates that ability to commercialise intellectual property out of universities. I am not sure if there is a direct measure, but I am happy to go away and have a look.

Mr GARDNER: I suspect that there is not a direct measure, and I agree with what the minister has said, but I think it is nevertheless a useful indicator. If you are going to have this sort of indicator in the budget papers of the department's performance, I think that having that level of scrutiny at least provides a bit more context.

In that same sense, in putting together these budget papers obviously somebody, whether it is your department or Treasury, has come up with these targets. I note that in 2013-14, going to previous budget papers, 39 patent applications were filed. This budget paper lists 46 in 2014-15 from a target of 25. Last year, there was a target of 30 and an estimated result of 27, which may or may not need to be adjusted. This year, the target has been dropped again to 25.

I am wondering if there is any analysis of why there are lower targets being set by the department here, or by Treasury or whoever puts this together, and over certainly from 2014-15 to last year and then a lower target again this year why there seems to be a drop, or diminution even, in ambition for the number of patents we are hoping our universities will file?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think there are a number of reasons for that, including the patenting process in Australia. I think that is one I will take it on notice to look at the range of reasons and bring back an accurate reply.

Mr GARDNER: Minister, earlier we were talking about the commonwealth's Mobile Black Spot Program. I am wondering if that priority list we were talking about earlier could be provided in this estimates process—the sites?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, they were in discussions with the telecommunications companies. I am happy to go away and see if it is appropriate to provide that. I will take that question on notice.

Mr GARDNER: Unless one of my colleagues has a last question, the last question I want to ask in this area is in relation to the targets:

...[the] over-arching Smart City Strategy for Adelaide in partnership with the Adelaide City Council and Cisco and continue to invest in Smart City projects and initiatives.

What is the time frame on the delivery of that Smart City Strategy? When are you expecting to announce it and how much of the department's $25 million in expenses is going to be put towards that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for the question. It is an important program. It builds on the existing MOU between the South Australian government, the Adelaide City Council and Cisco in relation to the Smart City project. Cisco has named Adelaide as Australia's only Cisco Lighthouse City, developing particularly internet of things capabilities. There are pilot projects already running under the Smart City program that include Smart Parking and Smart Public Lighting projects, and these results will help inform much larger scale programs across the CBD.

Sensor-driven LEDs have been replaced in existing lighting to test power savings and smart control capabilities and cameras to monitor on-street parking to drive smart availability, payment and infringement services in parking. We have established, in partnership with the Adelaide City Council and Cisco, the Adelaide Smart City Studio, which was opened on 26 November. That will help foster technology development to improve both resident and visitor interaction with the city and look to drive innovation and commercialisation of real-world solutions for industry, local entrepreneurs and start-ups.

Certainly, within the sensing area we know that there is a massive potential for first movers who can get technology integrated in terms of sensing and using that data to look at the way people interact and live in cities. There are a number of pilot projects already running, but we are looking at other ways to support, with our MOU with Cisco and the City Council, our Smart City initiatives.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to clarify the situation with where Bio Innovation SA is in the budget. Under appendix D in Budget Paper 3, which is the Treasurer's general summary of his organisation of agencies, Bio Innovation SA is listed as a general government sector entity and, as you say, it has 13 staff. Because it is not referred to in the government business section of the Treasurer's division as a separate entity, like the ones I gave you before, my question is: where are the 13 captured in relation to workforce? Are they on page 54 of State Development?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of where FTEs in BioSA are captured across the published budget papers? Is that the question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice with the other ones about BioSA and bring back a reply.

The CHAIR: There being no further time for questions, I declare the examination of the Minister for Science and Information Economy completed.

Sitting suspended from 14:16 to 14:30.