Administered items for the attorney-general's department, $158,992,000

ECA 4 Sub Proceeding

S.E. Andrews substituted for Ms Wortley.

Hon. L.W.K. Bignell substituted for Ms Savvas.

Mr Brown substituted for Ms Thompson.

Mr Teague substituted for Hon. D.J. Speirs.

Hon. J.A.W. Gardner substituted for Mr Batty.

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

Minister

Hon. K.J. Maher, Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector.

Departmental Advisers:

Hon. Justice T. Stanley, Supreme Court Justice, Acting Chair, State Courts Administration Council, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms P. Croser, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms L. Abrams-South, Executive Director Corporate Services, Chief Financial Officer, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr C. Black, Finance Manager, Courts Administration Authority.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

MR EIDEH: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

MR LIM: There is only one dot point

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

MR EIDEH: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

MR GIDLEY: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

MR LIM: And the last time that occurred was December?

MR GIDLEY: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

MR LIM: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

MR MCCURDY: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

MR O'BRIEN: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

MR WATT: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

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.

MR LEANE: Correct.

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

MR PERERA: 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.

MR MELHEM: 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.

MR LEANE: Correct.