DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, $95,827,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, $7,930,000

DEPARTMENT FOR MANUFACTURING, INNOVATION, TRADE, RESOURCES AND ENERGY, $89,407,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR MANUFACTURING, INNOVATION, TRADE, RESOURCES AND ENERGY, $1,325,000

Membership:

Hon. I.F. Evans substituted for Mr Marshall.

Mr Williams substituted for Mrs Redmond.

Witness:

Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for Public Sector, Minister for the Arts.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr. W. McCann, Commissioner for Public Employment, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Hallion, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr B. Morris, Executive Director, Corporate Operations and Governance, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Loulas, Manager, Financial Performance and Strategy, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms E. Ranieri, Public Sector Renewal Program, Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy.

Mr L. Jones, Director, Financial Performance and Strategy, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr B. Cinnamond, Executive Director, Public Sector Management Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr A. Mills, Executive Director, Office for the Chief Information Officer, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr D. Reynolds, Executive Director, Budget Branch, Department of Treasury and Finance.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination, and I invite the Premier to make an opening statement.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I begin by offering my recognition of the invaluable service provided by the South Australian public sector. The public sector employs more than 100,000 people, making it the largest employer in this state, with key jobs in nursing, teaching, policing, emergency services and many other indispensable areas of service delivery.

Since becoming elected, this government has significantly increased the number of employees working in frontline roles providing direct services to the public. While delivering these extra services, we have also sought to drive efficiencies. In the past three years, while we have seen a 3 per cent increase in the number of frontline workers as a percentage of the workforce, we have also seen a corresponding 2 per cent decrease in back-office staff. The number of excess employees has also been reduced through the Sustainable Workforce Program, which has delivered a 54 per cent reduction in less than two years and a saving of over $16.5 million, and we are committed to delivering more, with a reduction of 5,000 full-time equivalents expected by 2016.

The government has also had a very clear policy on the public sector. We have made it clear what efficiencies we are seeking to deliver, what savings we will make and what assets we will not sell. We made it clear that we will not be hacking into the groups of workers we know provide support for people in times of need. We will continue to wait, obviously, for the opposition to reveal its policy on these matters but, while doing that, the government is getting on with the job of improving quality and effectiveness in our public services through a more productive and innovative public sector.

We are doing this through a range of initiatives, including at Change@SouthAustralia, through the high-performance framework and through work of the areas of government that support the continued improvement of the public sector as a whole. These include the Office of Public Employment and Review, the Public Sector Management Division and the Public Sector Renewal Program Change@SouthAustralia.

The Office of Public Employment and Review focuses on statutory obligations under the Public Sector Act 2009, supporting the work of the Commissioner for Public Employment in his work as a leader of the public sector and employment matters generally and also in his role as an internal consultant for government. The office continues to improve the quality of the data we have in the shape and size of the public sector so that all of us can place informed decision-making and commentary about the nature and size of the public sector.

The Public Sector Management Division focuses on organisational performance and productivity through a range of initiatives, which have achieved substantial efficiencies in recent years. The Public Sector Management Division has helped to achieve significant reductions in excess staff, reducing this number from 419 to 194 this year. In addition, it has identified significant opportunities to better utilise temporary labour hire, at a cost reduction of $20 million.

PSMD also administers the high-performance framework agencies use as a primary tool for measuring performance and productivity. To date, the framework has realised 200 evidence-based performance improvement initiatives, which are being progressively rolled out to realise productivity gains. Through Change@SouthAustralia, the Public Sector Renewal Program has accelerated the delivery of more efficient, innovative and effective services.

Recently, we have completed the first of a round of 90-day projects which, amongst other things, deliver significant progress in initiatives that would otherwise take longer to deliver. A second round of these 90-day projects has begun, with a focus on red-tape reduction and online services.

The public sector is responding to these changes. They are excited about the changes we are making. It is giving more say to people on the frontline to make changes to the lives of everyday people. We will build on this work. We believe in treating the public sector as an asset whose value should be realised, not a burden which needs to be minimised.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Davenport want to make an opening statement?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, thanks.

The CHAIR: Questions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premier, in your opening statement, you mentioned how, over the last three years, you had increased the number of people in frontline services and decreased people in the back office services. Can you provide to the committee, for each of those years and for each year across the forward estimates, the government's estimated breakdown of those in frontline services and those in back office services?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can provide that information. Some of it will emerge from this answer, but the details of breaking it down in the way in which you have suggested, we may have to take some of that on notice. As at 30 June 2012, which is the date for when we have the most recent data about the composition of the public sector, there are 85,727 full-time equivalents, or 103,649 people employed. Some 34,060 of those FTEs were police, doctors, nurses and teachers (almost 40 per cent of the public sector), and this number and proportion has substantially increased since 2003.

Twenty-four thousand and eighty-three of the FTEs were in other frontline or direct service roles, making up almost 70 per cent in the public sector, once you add those two numbers together. These include: firefighters; ambulance officers; and allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists or radiographers, school service officers or disability workers. Of the FTEs, 27,585 were employed on policy administrative roles (about 30 per cent of the public sector). Many of these roles are vital to the prosperity of this state or the wellbeing of our citizens.

Since 2002, we can tell you that, based on FTE figures, there are 1,360 more medical officers (an 87 per cent growth), 4,389.9 more nurses (a 54 per cent growth), 461.7 emergency services officers (a 34 per cent growth), 755.8 more police officers (a 20 per cent growth), and 1,607.4 more teachers and school services officers (a 9 per cent growth). I will break that down in the way in which you have requested by taking that on notice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premier, Volume 4, page 65 deals with Public Service reform and management. There has been some media coverage in regards to the PSA winning job security provisions and protection of existing condition provisions in EBAs negotiated over the last 12 months. Can you provide the house with a list of all of the job security provisions and all of the protection of existing condition provisions that have been inserted into EBs negotiated over the last 12 months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice, but just for the sake of the information for the honourable member, I am presently advised that there are no job security measures which extend beyond 30 June 2014. There have been claims of that sort, but there have not been agreements. But, we will take that on notice and bring back an answer about each of those specific enterprise bargaining agreements.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Following on from your last answer: is that because it is still the government's intention to abolish the no forced redundancy policy for the Public Service as at the March 2014 election? I am assuming, from your answer, that it will all take effect from 1 July 2014?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The government has reduced the TVSPs from 116 weeks down to 52 weeks from 1 July 2014.

The CHAIR: Is this still the same budget paper number?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, it is. How is the 52 weeks from 1 July 2014 different to what would be paid out under the act if the no forced redundancies measure is withdrawn? In other words, if they are paid out under the act, how is that different to the TVSP offering, or is it just the same?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, TVSP is voluntary, for a start, so if there were to be a redundancy that was created under a new policy, the act prescribes the basis on which people can be made redundant. The act I think has always permitted terminations on account of redundancy. It is a policy which has dictated that we have not been doing that during the life of this government, but, as I understand it, the act itself does not provide for a redundancy payment in the event of termination on account of redundancy.

It provides a process which permits redundancy, but that is traditionally a matter that has been left for negotiation in enterprise bargaining agreements. As things presently stand, there is not such an agreement that provides for a payment in the event of termination for redundancy, partly because the union is still contesting the idea of whether that should happen.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry, the union are still contesting?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Contesting the idea that there should be forced redundancies. So, for them, as a matter of consistency, they have never negotiated an enterprise bargaining agreement that provides for what a worker would receive on termination of employment on account of redundancy, because their first position is that that policy should not change.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Right, so are you advising the committee that, in the EBs, there is no provision for a payout if someone is forced to leave the Public Service?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, that is as I understand it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So there is no payment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, that is not to suggest there would not be a payment in those circumstances. It is just that no specific agreement has been reached about what such a payment would be.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So that is being negotiated between now and the March election, is it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is something that would have to be grappled with in the lead-up to the implementation of the removal of the no forced redundancy policy. Obviously, the union is the principal representative of public sector workers, and its principal position is that there should remain a no forced redundancy policy, but that is different from the government's position.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Would it be an EB-by-EB negotiation, so you might end up with different payouts across different EBs, or is it the government's intention to negotiate one uniform payout system across all EBs?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the experience in the commonwealth system, which has moved away from no forced redundancies, is that it is rarely used. A process of attrition or voluntary separations allows the relevant numbers to be achieved. It would be in limited cases, we would imagine, that there would be a need for striking a redundancy payment in the event of a forced redundancy. That certainly would be the intention.

The first step, even before you get to redundancy, is to find alternative employment through a process of attrition. The next step is obviously to look to possibly people on fixed-term contracts and the non-renewal of those, and then, presumably, of course the possibilities of voluntary separation before you would get to the question of compulsory termination.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premier, in your answer, you mentioned attrition from the Public Service. That has been a matter of some debate in the house from time to time. With the commissioner there, I am just wondering whether you can give us any further clarity around the number of public servants who leave the Public Service each year and do not re-enter. What is the level of attrition the government is currently claiming exists within the Public Service?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Perhaps I will begin and then, if I miss anything, the commissioner might be able to supplement it. In 2012, there were 14,199 separations from public sector agencies, but it is estimated that 7 per cent of the total number of public sector employees leave entirely each year due to targeted voluntary separation packages, retirement and other reasons. This equated to approximately 7,200 employees in 2012. In addition, there are a large number of employees transferred to other public sector employment, either within their own agency or to another public sector agency. The relevant number in terms of attrition is the 7,200 number, which is employees who have left the service entirely.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, 7,200 leave the Public Service altogether?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How many of those are a result of TVSPs, or is that a different figure again?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is a different figure again.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, 7,000-odd leave without receiving a TVSP?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, a subset of that would be TVSPs. So, partly TVSP, partly retirement due to age, and maybe other reasons where they leave the sector and go to another sector of the service—the commonwealth, local government or perhaps the private sector.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How many who leave the Public Service are not receiving a separation package and how many who leave are receiving a separation package, out of that 7,200 figure that you have just given?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This will not match up neatly with the period I just referred to, but let me give you some idea of the order of magnitude. Between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2013 a total of 1,483 separations (1,374 full-time equivalents) have been delivered through TVSPs, so you would imagine it would be a relatively small proportion over one year. To assist, Budget Paper 3, page 32 gives you the TVSPs over the last three years, and they seem to be running at around 400 to 500 per annum, so it is the smaller part of the 7,200 separations.

The CHAIR: I ask the member for Davenport to refer to the budget papers so that we know where he is at.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As the Premier referred to, it is Budget Paper 3, page 32.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In Budget Paper 3, page 32, there is the figure of 1,483 total separations through TVSPs. That is over three years.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think you had a figure of about 7,200 in the 2012-13 year. Is that right?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Of separations, yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On page 32 it has 'Total separations through TVSPs' and 529 is the estimated result. Is it fair for the opposition to assume that, if you take the 529 off the 7,200, you get the figure of people who leave the Public Service without a TVSP and do not re-enter the Public Service?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will reflect on that, but I think there is a small number there for executive contract terminations, which will also affect the equation. I think, broadly, that is correct, but what we will do is we will reflect on this and give you the answer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Isn't the number of centrally-funded executives 11? Isn't that the number underneath, 11 in number?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So if I use the 529, am I using the right figure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It depends what you use you are going to put it to.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What I am trying to establish is the number of public servants that leave the Public Service every year, do not re-enter the South Australian Public Service, and do not receive a TVSP when they leave?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is an approximate number there and these are more specific numbers, but we will find the proper number which is 7,200 minus 528 minus 11. Those TVSP numbers are also recorded as the year to 31 March 2013, so there is a little bit of difference between the periods that we are analysing, but we will give you a detailed explanation of that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As of 30 June then, I assume, for the full 12 months then? When you come back to me it will be for the full 12 months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms BETTISON: With reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 64, Sub-program 6: Office of Public Employment and Review, does the Office of Public Employment and Review compile information about the composition of the public sector workforce and, if so, what does that information demonstrate about its size and the division between front-line and support services?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I mentioned earlier, we do have that data and I think what it demonstrates is that not only is 70 per cent of the workforce in these front-line roles—the 40 per cent which are police, doctors, nurses and teachers and the other 30 per cent in things which are very much front-line or direct support roles—but I think we also need to bear in mind that, of those remaining 30 per cent, they also play crucial roles in the future prosperity of South Australia.

For instance, amongst those policy roles and so-called administrative roles, are people who facilitate the regulatory and development opportunities in our mining and resources sector. So all of the work that has gone into the production of the road map for unconventional gas, which is unlocking extraordinary opportunities in the Cooper Basin, is all done by public servants.

There is a direct relationship between the fact that we are rated as the number one jurisdiction in the world by the Fraser Institute about our mining and resources data and administrative processes—there is a direct connection between that and the public servants that do that role. So it would be wrong to assume that, even though we are talking about 70 per cent front line and 30 per cent administrative, those administrative roles are not vital to the future prosperity of South Australia.

If you combine that with the data that we just saw about the attrition rate, of the 7,200 employees who leave, a proportion of those employees, 70 per cent—if one assumes that the separations are distributed normally across the service—will be in front-line roles and they will be necessary to replace: police, doctors, teachers, emergency services officers and nurses. Those roles will need to be replaced. So the opportunity for simply using attrition to deal with these issues is similarly constrained.

It is important, we believe, that any discussion about the optimum size of the public sector and any perceived need to reduce its size, the shape of it is always borne in mind. We think that suggestions that we do hear from time to time by those opposite of substantial inroads that might be able to be made in the public sector need to take into account the number of front-line tasks that exist and the importance of a number of these administrative roles. That does not mean that we cannot continue to achieve efficiencies, and we will need to in order to deliver the 5,000 FTE reduction that is already part and parcel of these budget figures.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer the Premier to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 66. Can the Premier explain or expand on how public sector employees who are declared excess are quickly placed in gainful employment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I thank the honourable member for his question. In 2011 we did provide for a central redeployment management program to reduce the number of people who are excess as a result of workplace reductions and the program has been extraordinarily successful. As at April, it has achieved 100 per cent reduction in employees who have been excess for over five years; a 22 per cent reduction for employees who have been excess for between two and five years; a 12 per cent reduction for those in excess of a year; and a 68 per cent reduction for those less than a year. It is a very significant improvement in our management of workplace reductions and the resolution of a number of long-term redeployment matters.

As of July 2011, there were 419, now there are (in April 2013), 194 excess employees—a 54 per cent reduction and a $16.5 million saving. Since 2011, 736 excess employees have been placed in long-term funded roles and, of the 193 employees currently excess, 63 are available for immediate placement, as the others are in funded short-term roles or on leave. All 63 employees were available for placement undertaking necessary work. There is no employee who is without duties and there is no transit lounge either centrally or within agencies.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Following up on a similar line of questioning to the member for Little Para, for each department and agency reporting to the minister can the minister take on notice and provide to us as at 30 June this year how many surplus employees there will be at that date? For each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of the employee and the total employment cost of the employee? Also, as to the intervention program that you have put in place, how many FTEs are involved in that and what is the total cost to that program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will take that on notice and bring back an answer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On the Public Sector Renewal Program, how many FTEs are involved in that within your agency and what is the total budget within your agency and across government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Program 1: Public Sector Renewal identifies the costs and expenses associated with running the program.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry, Premier. What page was that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Page 112.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the total cost of the program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Total expenses are $1.8 million in 2012-13 and, in 2013-14, it will be $1.5 million.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why is that under the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because what we have traditionally done in relation to public sector renewal is second employees from a range of government agencies; that has been historically how we have funded the Public Sector Renewal Program. Ms Ranieri has an existing placement within the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy and so it was convenient to locate that program within her existing agency; that is where she draws her supports.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is it being funded across the forward estimates at the same level?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, $1.5 million over the forward estimates.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Each year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What programs are they working on?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As you will see in the papers here, on page 113 it sets out a number of the steps that are being taken in the 90-day change projects which are really at the heart of the Public Sector Renewal Program. Essentially, they are about action-based learning. They are individual projects dealing with particular areas that need attention within the public sector. Those areas are made the subject of a 90-day project which, therefore, puts a focus on those things.

What is learnt from those programs is then expanded upon and used across the broader public sector. The idea is that each of these programs will eventually touch every agency and lead to culture change within the public sector. There is a series of the first-round projects there and there is a series of second-round projects which are underway.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, there are 200 possible projects. How many have been completed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The first-round projects, as I say, are set out on page 113.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, but how many of those have been completed in the last 12 months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: All of the first-round projects have been completed because they are, by definition, 90-day projects. So, they have all been concluded and they are all set out on page 113.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is there a list of the other 200 or 200 less first-round projects? I assume there is a list somewhere of all these projects.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The high-performance framework is the thing that has led to the 200 productivity improvements, and that is a different exercise. That is a leadership program that has led to a series of discrete changes within agencies. I do not have the list of the 200 productivity changes, but they are things that have emerged out of that high-performance framework.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If you could take on notice and provide to the committee the list—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sure.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —that would be handy. Premier, Mr McCann, I think, still works as a consultant for the agency as well as commissioner.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He works in a role which would, if it was performed outside of the government department, be described in the nature of a consultant. So, essentially, he provides, on a case-by-case basis, project work for agencies on particular issues that might arise within their portfolio. For instance, for me, when I was in the education portfolio, he did a piece of work concerning the Cora Barclay Centre. He does discrete projects of that sort, which are in the nature of an in-house consultancy.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the time split between his role as commissioner and consultant, and how much has he been paid the last 12 months for his consultancy work?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He doesn't get paid as a consultant: he just gets paid as the Commissioner for Public Employment. He attributes approximately 50 per cent of his time to the role of commissioner, in addition to his other internal consultancy services to government, and also provides high-level duties in special assignments allocated by me and other ministers.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, he gets paid nothing as a consultant? He just gets paid as a commissioner?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The time split?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is an estimate by Mr McCann, but he attributes approximately 50 per cent of his time to the role of commissioner, and then he has a range of other internal consultancy services and other high-level duties in special assignments that he is given by me or ministers.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is there any other chief executive across the Public Service that also works as a consultant in a similar manner to Mr McCann?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I don't think so. It might be worth adding that it is an incredibly valuable and cost-effective way of us getting the work done. Frankly, having considered a number of consultant reports over the 11 years I have been in this role, I find Mr McCann's reports to be of the highest quality and, certainly, they come at a much lower price.

Ms BETTISON: My question is to the Premier, with reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 112 to 113, Program 1: Public Sector Renewal. Can the Premier explain how the government's Public Sector Renewal Program, called Change@SouthAustralia, has helped improve the productivity of the public sector?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In a word, or a phrase, culture change. It is basically changing how public servants see their role and it is designed to create a more dynamic and productive public sector, with an emphasis on service delivery, but also taking real responsibility for your own decisions, rather than just doing something the way it has always been done or complying with a set of rules which seem to constrain the way things should be done, even if you think that there might be a better way of doing it. It is giving people the permission to do new things in new ways.

The program has three key elements: articulating a set of values, behaviours, practices and, importantly, taboos, things that you should not do, which are intended to help change the culture of the public sector; a range of 90-day projects, which are directed at change, which will accelerate change in a range of ways; and the development of a change management toolkit to support and improve the ability of the public sector to deliver change.

Each of these elements is improving productivity in our public sector day. We are not waiting for some external consultant to tell us how to get on with it. We are getting on with the job of lifting productivity with our own workforce. The 90-day change projects in particular are helping accelerate improved service delivery. Up to 35 projects will be delivered in the first 12 months, each improving the productivity of the workforce, with significant flow-on benefits across government.

As we have noted, the first round has been completed, and some of the highlights are worth pointing out. One of the most successful has been the focus on getting healthy patients home sooner through the process of criteria-led discharge. Essentially, it authorises health professionals to discharge patients rather than waiting on doctors once they have met predetermined criteria. We have successfully implemented this project at Flinders Medical Centre and we are now rolling it out more broadly.

An example of the benefit of this project was demonstrated when an expectant mother suspected of going into labour arrived at Flinders. After being assessed by a skilled midwife, the mother was discharged within four hours of her arrival, as she was not ready yet to give birth. She was not required to wait for a doctor. The mother was able to return to the comfort of her home until the labour progressed. The woman now has a healthy baby. The criteria-led discharge really frees up capacity in our hospital system.

The other highlight, I think, has been getting police back in the community. SAPOL trialled fast tracking of court processes for relatively minor victimless offences, such as road traffic offences. Instead of delivering a summons by hand, police officers send a text message following a phone call to the person. The results have been outstanding, police officers saving an average of 27 minutes per offender. Fast tracking offenders who are willing to plead guilty has resulted in a 29 per cent increase in matters that are resolved on the first court appearance. The model has been trialled at Holden Hill, but due to its success it is being extended to the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just back on Mr McCann as a consultant, can the Premier provide a list of all the reports Mr McCann has done in his role as a consultant?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I can. In August 2010, the regulation of VET services for overseas students in South Australia; January 2011, a review of the Cora Barclay Centre, that I mentioned earlier; June 2011 a review of the operational performance of Housing SA; January 2012 a report of the independent review of the Health Performance Council membership structure; June 2012 payments of accounts review; July 2012 a review of South Australian major events held in March; and October 2012 a review of non-hospital based services.

In addition, Mr McCann is currently conducting two additional consultancies, a review to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of Adelaide's current status as a festival city, to specify actions and strategies to maximise our competitive position for the benefits of Adelaide as a centre of major cultural arts festivals. That is for the minister assisting the Minister for the Arts. That is to be completed by the end of August.

The Minister for Health and Ageing has engaged Mr McCann to conduct an independent review which will consider the efficacy and appropriateness of SA Health's policies, procedures and processes around the suspension of health practitioners from duty in circumstances where there is suspected harm or serious risk to patients, clients or staff. That is expected to be completed soon. Again, can I say that the costs associated with those things, if they were external consultancies, would, I think, far exceed Mr McCann's salary for the Commissioner for Public Employment.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not quite understand why he could not have simply done them as commissioner for public employment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, he effectively is. We are describing it as an in-house consultancy more for internal discussion. That nomenclature is not used in any relevant sense elsewhere.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Referring to page 184 in Budget Paper 4 regarding boards and committees, you will probably have to take this on notice, I would suspect: what is the total amount of retention allowance, relocation allowance, attraction allowance and retainer fees paid to members of government boards and committees for the 2012-13 year finishing 30 June; and what is it for each category across the forward estimates? For each committee and board where someone is receiving any of those payments, what is the total amount of each payment for that particular committee or board for the 2012-13 financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will take that on notice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In the 2012-13 budget, the government introduced the public sector skills and experience retention entitlement for those who have served over 15 years. What is the estimated result for 2012-13?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will have to take that on notice. It would be in each agency, so we will have to aggregate that data for you.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If you could, and also then, the new estimates across the forward estimates including the year 2016-17.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: To the extent that those numbers are calculated, it rather presumes that somebody retires, doesn't it? We will take it on notice to see if that data is collected and, if it is, it will be made available.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In the Budget Measures Statement for the 2012-13 budget, on page 12, someone calculated the cost of that provision across all the forward estimates. I assume it is possible to calculate the new figures based on the experience of having it in place for 12 months and then someone would have recalculated it across the forward estimates.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: For the information you request, there has not yet been the experience of a financial year under the new arrangements to be able to make an assessment of the number that you seek, but once that is known, then we may be in a better position to answer your question.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Under this new scheme, they have the capacity to cash out the leave. Has there been any record kept of how many are taking up the opportunity to cash it out?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because this is a new proposition and because the process is that that will happen in July and August, those events have not yet occurred, so there is no relevant event to record in terms of the data. That will be known later this year.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I apologise, Premier, I did not quite hear you. What is the relevance of July and August?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: July and August is, I understand, the period during which chief executives will be seeking to communicate with staff about whether they wish to make application to the chief executive to cash out any relevant benefits, so the event that you are asking us to provide information about has not yet happened and we do not know how many people will take it up during that period.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the only opportunity the staff member has is once a year in July or August? You cannot go to your CEO and say, 'I want to do it in February, March or April because I am on holidays and I want the money'?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think as a matter of practice that is what will happen. This is the first year it has happened, so this will be the first opportunity for people.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is this built into EBs, or is it just a policy thing? Is the whole scheme actually in the EBs?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a policy.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is part of the role of this section of the Public Service to benchmark the performance of the South Australian Public Service productivity against other states or other public services and, if so, have any South Australian reports been done in the last 12 months that do benchmark South Australia's performance against other states?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is a range of different metrics that allow you to compare performance between jurisdictions. The RoGS data gives you some capacity to make relevant comparisons between jurisdictions, but care needs to be taken with some of that data because of the different configuration of the South Australian population.

For instance, South Australia has one of the highest proportions of relatively small population aggregations in the nation, which tends to have the effect of meaning that it is a more expensive system to run because of economies of scale which tend to accrue to larger jurisdictions, where the concentration of population is higher. We draw on the COAG and other RoGS data, which allows us to make comparisons between the effectiveness of our Public Service and other public services around Australia.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 65. What is the annual cost of the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission, and how many matters did it deal with in the last financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Public Sector Grievance Review Commission was established under the Public Sector Act 2009, and it commenced operation when the act was proclaimed in February 2010. Employment decisions are reviewed by the Industrial Relations Commissioner, and the Governor appoints the presiding member and assistant commissioners. Sir David Stevens holds the Presiding Commissioner position and provides additional support for the function. Two assistant commissioners have been appointed, and they are Ms Kathleen McEvoy and Ms Anne Burgess.

The commission is funded by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The commission requires 0.8 FTE (ASO 5 salary) to provide administrative support ($70,000) and approximately $50,000 to cover payments to commissioners, plus sundry expenses ($5,000); this equates to a total annual cost of $125,000. I am sorry, but we do not have the number of grievances; we will take that on notice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In order to understand it right: it is simply a secretariat that services part of the Industrial Relations Commission that specialises in Public Service matters. Is that essentially it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a grievance commission that sits separately and apart from the Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Commission will use—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How much is the cost of the two or three commissioners, then? It must be more than $125,000.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No; they are all part time. It is $125,000.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 65. What is the budget for the Australian and New Zealand School of Government initiative, and how many FTEs are involved in that program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: $100,000.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: $100,000 each year across the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And that includes any travel? That is the total budget, is it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is the membership fee for us participating in ANZSOG, and is $100,000 per annum.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How many public servants are involved in this program? You are paying $100,000 a year membership, so how many people across the Public Service are involved in it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will take that on notice. It varies from year to year, but essentially it gives us access to the resources associated with ANZSOG which have been assisting us in a general sense with our public sector renewal efforts. Also, individual members of the Public Service may participate in ANZSOG programs from time to time.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Public Service workers compensation scheme, is that handled by Mr McCann, or do I ask questions of minister Rau?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is minister Rau.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's what I thought; okay. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 64talks about high-level reviews being requested of the agency by ministers. Other than the ones Mr McCann has done, what other high-level reviews have been requested by any minister in the last 12 months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is limited to those matters that we referred to.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 71 deals with ICT services under the Chief Information Officer. I notice that we have spent money to set up 'email and SMS notifications alerting them to expiring vehicle registrations'. What was the total cost of establishing that, and what is the total annual cost of administering that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Joining me now, sir, is Andrew Mills, the Chief Information Officer. We have to take that question on notice, I am afraid.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So no-one knows how much it costs to establish the reminder system for the—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am sure we do; we just don't have it at our fingertips. We will supply the answer to you as soon as we can.

Ms BETTISON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Program 7, Sub-program 7.1, page 69. Can the Premier advise why the government has made the public release of more government data a target for 2013-14?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I thank the honourable member for her question. There is an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge in our community that can be unlocked to help us to improve the delivery of public services. One way of seeking to unlock this expertise is providing our information industry with more raw material—more data—that can be used to invent new solutions and develop new products that provide community benefit.

The target to increase the amount of data that is released will build on the success of Unleashed, the government's open data competition, held from 31 May to 2 June as part of GovHack, a national open data event. Unleashed invited web programmers, app developers, entrepreneurs, web designers, coders and open data devotees to put their skills to the test to create new ideas and digital solutions that benefit the community.

Supported by DPC, staff from across government prepared depersonalised data sets for public release and use in the competition. The results have been encouraging. In all, 105 registered competitors participated in Adelaide, including people who travelled from the regions. Of the 133 teams registered across the nation, 26 teams were in Adelaide. Four national prizes were awarded to South Australia and South Australia was recognised as the best government contributor, emphasising the enthusiasm that Unleashed generated across digital entrepreneurs in our state. These achievements provide a strong foundation to build on in 2013-14 as we increase the public release of government data.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4 talks about the reduction in executives. There was a target to cut 138 executives in the 2010-11 budget across the 2012-13 and 2013-14 years. Can you advise what is the net reduction in executives in the 2012-13 year and each year across the forward estimates, and is this target on track?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, as you note, the 2010-11 budget was where we committed to reduce the number of executives by 20 per cent by 30 June 2013. There has been significant progress. As at 31 March, there was a 15.6 per cent reduction. This has been achieved through a combination of 58 separations through early termination of contracts and other decreases, predominantly through abolishing vacant possessions, of 64.

In terms of if we are on track for the future, I will have to take that on notice, but obviously our intention is to try to achieve the 20 per cent target, and we are at 15.6 per cent at the moment. In relation to this particular agency, we have reached the 20 per cent reduction within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Following up on that, how many public servants are there that are not classified as part of the executive service but are paid a salary level, when bonuses and entitlements are included, that is equal to or greater than the lowest level of the South Australian executive service?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will have to take that question on notice, because there would be some teachers, presumably, and police officers that would fit into that category, and other allowances, because they work in remote regions, etc., that might take them into that territory. I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What was the number—when the original target was set to cut it by 20 per cent—of the executive service then, and what is the expected number as at 30 June this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said, the original number was 787 budgeted executive positions as at 30 June 2010, and there has been a 122 FTE reduction. Just to supplement, in answer to an earlier question, I mentioned the ANZSOG budget was $100,000. It is actually $117,000.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Ministers still do not get involved in the setting of Public Service salaries, do they? That is ultimately a matter for non-ministers.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, except to the extent that the Cabinet sets the parameters for Public Service negotiations with—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But on an individual level, ministers do not get involved?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare consideration of the proposed payments for Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Administered Items for Department of the Premier and Cabinet adjourned until 28 June, and Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy and Administered Items for the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy adjourned to Committee B.