Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $75,551,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,879,000

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms M. Boland, Acting Executive Director, SafeWork SA.

Mr S. De Musso, Acting Director, Community Engagement, SafeWork SA.

Mr M. Spratt, Principal Finance Officer, SafeWork SA.

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

Ms T. Blight, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I declare the payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volumes 1 and 3.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I was saying before, very briefly, the return-to-work scheme is the place where people who are injured at work wind up if they are injured. What SafeWork is about is stopping them getting injured in the first place, in part, and also, where there is a mishap in the workplace, they have an investigative and ultimately a prosecutorial role, in effect, in relation to bad behaviour of an industrial and employment nature. One of the things I am very keen on doing is to see that we not only deal with the people who wind up injured but that we also deal with the system by which we try to prevent them being injured.

To that end, we put out some papers not that long ago talking about modifications we would like to make to the SafeWork arrangements. In summary, those modifications primarily get to this point: we are trying to have more of the structural separation within the organisation between the inspectorate, which is responsible for the policing, if you like, of the industrial law and the educational or supportive function that SafeWork has so that those two functions are managed as discrete entities within the work unit rather than each being in some way bits and pieces of the other.

In the last week or so, advertisements have been placed in the newspaper. Applications have just closed for the position of executive director and the two senior executive positions below the executive director. Broadly speaking, the map of the thing will be the executive director, one of those people will be primarily involved in the inspectorate aspect of the business, and the other will be primarily involved in the educational aspect of the business, and the management structures will fall below them. The applications have just closed and I am advised that shortlisting is beginning immediately.

Mr KNOLL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 41; I think that is the operative page. I will start off with a bit of a favourite of mine, referring to the Health and Safety Work Place Partnership Program, which was cut in this year's budget. The decision to have this program continue through the 2014-15 financial year was taken in August last year, but that decision did not appear in the midyear budget update. Can I ask the minister why, given that the decision was taken post budget and it was not included in last year's budget, it was not outlined as part of the midyear budget update?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice and find out. I am not sure why Treasury reports things—or does not report them, as the case may be—in the way they do.

Mr KNOLL: Just as a follow-up to that, we were discussing it in a committee meeting some weeks ago and it was said that all the reports for that program were on the website. However, upon viewing the website it seems that the reports provided by the seven different unions that got money as part of this program were only updated four hours after the committee was completed, as opposed to beforehand. Obviously in the committee meeting that morning it was said that they were on the website, but it seems that information was only put up that afternoon. Does the minister have a comment about that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know anything about those details. That may be so.

Mr KNOLL: Same budget paper. Can the minister detail which positions are being cut from SafeWork SA in relation to the reduction of 11.4 FTEs between 2014-15 and 2015-16?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will let Marie answer that for you.

Ms BOLAND: The positions in the previous financial years that were cut were mainly admin and policy type roles.

Mr KNOLL: So we are not talking about a reduction in inspectors or on-the-ground officers?

Ms BOLAND: There has been no reduction in inspectors.

Mr KNOLL: On the same budget line, what was the savings target allocated to SafeWork SA in 2014-15 and the previous year 2013-14?

Ms BOLAND: The 2014-15 savings were, I will just check—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will take it on notice.

Mr KNOLL: You might want to take this on notice as well. Are those savings allocations responsible for driving down SafeWork SA's expenses from $39 million to $33.5 million, or was the reduction in expenses as a result of something separate from the savings task?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will take that on notice too.

Mr KNOLL: Same budget line: can the minister explain what has driven SafeWork SA's expenses down by $5.4 million whilst, at the same time, the number of FTEs have grown by 11.8?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: I will leave that question aside for a second then. On the same budget line, I will ask the minister something slightly different. Is Aaron Cartledge on the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will check.

The CHAIR: Can't you look that up on your iPad now while we are waiting? I think you are faster.

Mr KNOLL: I normally would be—

The CHAIR: Look it up yourselves.

Mr KNOLL: Unfortunately, no. We found a whole host of other information—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that he is.

Mr KNOLL: In October last year Aaron Cartledge was found to have contravened right of entry laws on 19 and 20 March 2014 in hindering and obstructing Hansen Yuncken management—and I am getting to a question which is quite pertinent to this—

The CHAIR: Let's get to the question first and have the explanation later.

Mr KNOLL: The Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act 1987 provides, as one of the conditions of membership, that a member of the board be eligible for re-appointment except where they are guilty of negligent duty or dishonourable conduct. Does the minister consider that Aaron Cartledge's conviction constitutes dishonourable conduct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not being aware until just now that Aaron Cartledge was even involved in the thing, or having my attention drawn to that matter, I have not turned my mind to any of those matters ever, but I will put together the clues I have just been given and give them due consideration.

Mr KNOLL: Same budget line, so Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 41, regarding the provision of corporate support costs allocated to the SafeWork SA sub-program. Have these corporate support costs been reduced in aggregate or have they just been reallocated between different sub-programs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to this sounds very complicated to me but it is something to do with machinery of government changes between the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Attorney-General's Department. Perhaps Mr Swanson, who is an expert on these matters and understands numbers and things, will be able to explain that better than me.

Mr SWANSON: To try to put it simply, there was a corporate allocation included in the program numbers for SafeWork when it was with the DPC and this figure was a lot higher compared to the similar number when they moved to the Attorney-General's Department on 1 July. So, that is effectively the reason for the change in the corporate numbers.

Mr KNOLL: Just to clarify then: can you outline what the corporate support costs allocated to the SafeWork SA sub-program in 2014-15 and 2015-16 are?

Mr SWANSON: I do not have that breakdown, other than to say it has reduced.

Mr KNOLL: If we continue on the same line. Can the minister list the research projects and supplementary scholarships that were funded through the SafeWork SA grants program in 2014-15?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will get the full list.

Mr KNOLL: Wonderful. While you are there then, minister, can we get the total value of the grants in 2014-15 and what is the budget for this item in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The budget line for 2015-16, I am advised, is $1,945,500.

Mr KNOLL: Of these grants how many grants were paid to union or union-based organisations and what are the values of those grants?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice. I would need to check.

Mr MARSHALL: Just on that same line, were there any grants paid to employer organisations and what was the value of the grants to the employer organisations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I would have to check. We have broad categories here. We do not have individual—we have them tallied by reference to categories.

Mr MARSHALL: By category rather than recipient?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct. For instance, just to give you an example, it says here, 'WHS-commissioned research', and, 'WHS innovative practice grants program', that is it. It says, 'WHS supplementary scholarships', etc. So, we need to chop those down in order to answer your questions: were any unions; were any employers? We need to chop those down. There are others here which are—there is a particular amount of money that goes to Safe Work Australia, which is a single payment, and there is a single payment to the Young Workers Legal Service and a single payment to the Working Women's Centre, but the rest of them are aggregated.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive answer to your question but it appears that at least on one occasion we have the HIA receiving a grant with respect to falling housing construction, Hair and Beauty SA, which I guess is an employer, and Wildcatch Fisheries. I am just picking them out at random, but we will try to get them all.

Mr MARSHALL: You will provide the detail?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you also advise what the criteria for those are and who makes the decision?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will, yes.

Mr KNOLL: If we can stay on Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 41, in the 2014-15 estimated result versus the 2013-14 actual. How many TVSPs were taken in the SafeWork SA subprogram in 2014-15? If you are looking at it there, how many are planned for 2015-16?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised there was one in 2014-15.

Mr KNOLL: Is it planned that there will be any then in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that depends a little bit on what follows from the new management team. There is certainly a savings target which needs to be met. Exactly how the new management team goes about doing that is, I guess, a matter for them.

Mr KNOLL: In relation to the decrease in income of $3.8 million following the introduction of the new legislation, what specifically was this extra funding provided for and what else has contributed to the decrease in the income in 2014-15? The budget line here talks about additional income following the introduction of new work health and safety regulations in SA, and obviously then in 2014-15 that number decreases.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will get you something a bit more detailed on this, but I am advised that some of the bumpiness there is to do with the new licences having a five-year period. So a lick of money comes in when the licence is taken out, then there is a flat period, presumably, and in five year's time you get another bump.

Mr KNOLL: If we can switch now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 42. We are looking here at the activity indicators. The number of work health and safety intervention activities projected for 2014-15 was 24,000; however, the number of activities delivered was only 21,000. Can the minister explain why the activity target was not met? What was that gap due to, especially given that in 2013-14 there were just under 30,000 intervention activities.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, as a result of the work of the parliamentary committee, there was a refocusing within the agency towards putting more into education rather than prosecutions. I am advised that is the explanation.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask then about prevention initiatives? We have seen a sharp increase in the number of prevention initiatives in 2014-15 versus 2013-14. Can I ask what drove that increase?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is partly the answer I have just given, and there has been a community engagement directorate established. Since I have been minister I have been very keen to see the agency have a better reach. I am very serious about the point I made before that it is all very well to have a reasonably operating and hopefully very effective return-to-work scheme, but much better than that is to stop people getting hurt in the first place. I am very keen on the agency having a strong work safety culture message that they can convey out there.

Mr KNOLL: As a result of the decrease in intervention activities, increase in prevention, have we seen any improvement in injury rates or in compliance of employers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is probably a little bit soon to be able to say with any confidence.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to page 41. How many rights of entry were lodged with SafeWork SA last year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there were 232.

Mr KNOLL: Can the minister outline how many of those were investigated for legal compliance and how many actions were taken for noncompliance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: When you say legal compliance, I need to know what you mean.

Mr KNOLL: Rights of entries were lodged, and not all the time is correct procedure used.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I see; you are asking whether the validity of the issue of those 232 was looked at?

Mr KNOLL: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised there were no complaints about them. I assume that that probably suggests that nobody took up the issue of validity. I am advised that in this current calendar year there have been three about which there have been disputes of the validity of those issued.

Mr KNOLL: Has there been any action taken for noncompliance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told that those three matters have been resolved.

Mr KNOLL: Has SafeWork SA or ReturnToWorkSA investigated the benefits to taxpayers of merging the two organisations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can you ask the question again?

Mr KNOLL: We are still on page 41. SafeWork SA and ReturnToWorkSA are two different organisations, one being about injured people and SafeWork about compliance. Has there been an investigation about the merging of those two bodies?

The CHAIR: Merging the two departments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have given a bit of thought to not so much the merger of the two bodies but where the boundary of one and the boundary of the other should begin and end. There are two functions that I think are completely incompatible to be in the same body, and that is to run what amounts to an insurance company, which is what ReturnToWorkSA is, and to run an industrial police force, which is what one part of SafeWork SA is, or an inspectorate. I just cannot see how you could possibly bring those two things into the same place and have them harmoniously coexist.

There is, I think, room for a debate about where the educational function of SafeWork sits and, potentially, where the risk management function of ReturnToWorkSA sits. At the moment, the risk management side of things is resting with ReturnToWorkSA and the educational role is sitting with SafeWork. I personally think that is about right. We are prepared to watch and see how the new structure works. If it works, it will be great; if does not, I am prepared to go back and look at that again.

The only other point I would make is to just remember this: ReturnToWorkSA has got quite a lot of information and eyes over some employers but not all employers (it is only the employers in that scheme), whereas SafeWork is looking at everybody, whether they are self-insured or public sector or wherever they are. In some respects, SafeWork has a much broader remit than ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr KNOLL: In the minister's opening remarks, he talked about the vacant positions at the top of SafeWork SA—obviously the executive director and then the two directors who sit below that. Can the minister outline how much has been spent on that recruitment process and whether this has been incorporated within the budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has not been finalised. So far, basically all that has been done is the chief executive, Mr Persse, has placed ads in the newspaper. A recruitment company has been retained. We are hoping to attract quality candidates with national advertising. I think the way we are thinking about proceeding is that we will probably do a stepped appointment, in the sense that we will be looking to appoint the executive director first because we do not want to put a new executive director in a room with pre-picked people with whom that person then has to work forever. We would want that person to be part of the conversation about who the other two people would be.

Mr KNOLL: I have a slightly different question, but still on page 41. For the gazetted field inspectors who obviously exist within SafeWork SA, does SafeWork SA capture the number of kilometres they travel in a day and average out the number of kilometres these field inspectors are travelling on a daily basis?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised they fill out a logbook.

Mr KNOLL: Does SafeWork SA have an average number of kilometres they would travel in a day?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will have to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: We will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43, Sub-program 8.2: WorkCover Ombudsman Services.

The CHAIR: We have an Employee Ombudsman person moving forward. So, you are right to go with just Mr Persse and Mr Swanson?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, Mr Swanson is back.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: Can the minister confirm whether all the functions previously maintained by the WorkCover Ombudsman Services sub-program have been transferred to other agencies and, if so, which functions have been transferred to which agencies; that is, where did the functions go?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The WorkCover Ombudsman was predominantly put there to address what had been perceived as a problem with the then WorkCover scheme. Mr McCarthy and his team are not here anymore but, from memory, it was to do with the suspension of payments to people. The WorkCover Ombudsman was there to be the go-to guy if somebody had their payments suspended under the scheme.

Because the new arrangements do not permit the suspension of people's payments, other than for reasons of fraud, the whole reason for that entity existing disappears. The powers of the ombudsman ceased on 30 June, and anything in relation to complaints about compliance with service standards, which was another function, has been referred to the State Ombudsman. So, most of the reason for the existence of this ombudsman disappeared with the old act, and the residual little bit has gone across to the State Ombudsman.

Mr KNOLL: Just on that, minister, when you talk about the functions that have disappeared, we talk about suspension of payments. I assume the WorkCover Ombudsman would have dealt with cases where people did not like the determinations that had been made against them, whether they be the determinations about whole person impairment or, thinking now in the case of the new scheme, ongoing medical claims. Where do people with those claims that will still exist post the new scheme go for help with their matters?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Initially, they would obviously make a request of ReturnToWorkSA. If that was unsatisfactory, they could seek a review by ReturnToWorkSA of the decision and also they could lodge a notice of dispute, which would then move into the conciliation phase under the new arrangements, and then ultimately, if that remained unsatisfactory, it could be brought before a presidential member of the tribunal. Those people do have a methodology to agitate their concerns.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask then, minister, in the 2013-14 financial year and in 2014-15, how many different people applied for help from the WorkCover Ombudsman?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have some bits of information about it. Complaints to the office in 2014-15 decreased to 215, compared with 281 for the preceding year, and 100 per cent of those were resolved within 12 months. Again, getting back to what I said before, reviews of decisions to cease weekly payments increased for the 2014-15 year. There were 414 reviews, compared with 310 in 2013-14. This reflects a significant increase in decisions by claims agents to stop weekly payments of compensation to workers following work capacity reviews.

Mr KNOLL: That makes perfect sense, minister. My point is, I suppose, that those work capacity reviews will continue to take place under this new scheme.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They will.

Mr KNOLL: So, obviously there are a couple hundred people there that felt the need to use the WorkCover Ombudsman before, and now we are saying that we just do not need him anymore and that all those people—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I take your point, and I think it probably is fair to say that there will be some people who will be affected by work capacity reviews on an ongoing basis who might, but for this, have been able to go there, but they still have a redress option available, which is going through the disputation process. I think it is really important to understand that the old scheme basically said that, if you were in the context of a dispute about your claim, the payments stopped. The new scheme does not do that.

There might be a few work capacity people but, bear in mind, because the scheme only runs for two years, the number of people who are going to get to the point of being work capacity reviewed is much smaller than the number, if any, compared with what was in the old scheme. Of course, the old measure, which said that as soon as a dispute goes in payments cease pending a determination of the dispute, has gone as well. I just do not think there are going to be that many people who would be in that category.

Mr KNOLL: Just as a final comment on that, there have obviously been changes, not necessarily due to the new legislation—for instance, a lowering of the number of stress claims that are accepted on the outset—and certainly a much more aggressive early intervention process with these mobile case managers. That is something that will continue that is pre and post scheme and could potentially lead to issues, but we will move on.

Can I go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43, Sub-program 8.3: Employee Ombudsman Services. Can I ask the same question, minister: have all the functions previously maintained by the Employee Ombudsman been transferred to other agencies and, if so, where did they go?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With this one, I will take it on notice in part because I am not sure I have the answer at the tip of my fingertips. But can I say this: as you would appreciate, by reason of matters put through this parliament, that office now does not exist.

The reason I brought that proposition to parliament was that I was not satisfied that there was a need for that office to exist, otherwise I would not have taken that step. To get you the particulars of it, I will, but I just formed the view that it was an office which was not giving great value.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask how many people used the Employee Ombudsman in the previous year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will find out for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Just on the same line, the previous employee ombudsman had been on leave since June 2013?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What were the arrangements when the office was closed, in terms of finalising his contract with the state?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand, in short, that basically when the office was abolished any entitlement the occupant of that office had for ongoing remuneration ended because there was no office to which that person continued to be appointed.

Mr MARSHALL: What date did it cease to operate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised the act came into operation in April of this year. I am not sure about the exact date, but I can find out if that would help.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it fair to say that the previous employee ombudsman had been on leave with pay from June 2013 to April 2015?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is probably correct.

Mr MARSHALL: And then a payment was made? My understanding is—and you might like to confirm—that that appointment was a six-year appointment that would run through until 2018.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide this committee with the detail of how much the previous employee ombudsman was paid, in terms of pay while he was on leave and separately as his termination payment from that position?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sure, I will do that. Can I just say something? I have just received some information and I want to correct the record. When I was answering the member for Schubert, I mentioned something about work capacity reviews and how I thought they would be rare under the new scheme. They are worse than that: they do not exist. They are not just rare, they do not happen at all. That is why I was hoping that Mr McCarthy was still here because he could have confirmed that for me.

Back to this matter, though, the situation is that the occupant went on leave with pay in circumstances where, as members would be aware, there were charges but those charges had never been dealt with or proven. So, we were left in a sort of limbo land, where we could not move forward and we could not move backwards. It would not have been appropriate to leave the occupant in his office in an active capacity in circumstances where there were charges standing against him but, by the same token, for all we know he may or may not be acquitted of those charges. I do not believe he has even been dealt with yet, to be honest; 4 August is the next day the thing is in court.

What happened was that he went off on this extended leave. Our advice was that we could do that, but that was about it, and that to attempt to terminate in circumstances where there had been no proven guilt or finding of guilt would amount to a pretty unfair way of treating an individual. So, the matter sat in what I consider to be unsatisfactory limbo for a period of time.

Mr MARSHALL: Just to clarify that, minister, you will come back to the committee with the full cost of the employee during the time that he was on leave, so June 2013 through to April 2015, and then the termination cost?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, whatever payment came of it.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there any suggestion that we have actually closed down this agency—we have closed down the Office of the Employee Ombudsman—to deal with this very difficult, expensive problem that the government has had?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but it made my decision probably easier, because I was concerned that there did not appear to be any screaming function for this office to discharge. The period during which the occupant of the office was away from the office and not discharging duties, obviously, did not appear to cause any great calamity out there in the broader community. I certainly did not have people ringing me up saying, 'What's happened? Get this thing working again.' So I formed the view that it was something which might have been a good idea at one point in time. It might have been adversely affected, perhaps, by the WorkChoices changes where a lot of the stuff migrated out of the state jurisdiction across to the commonwealth. There might have been a whole bunch of reasons why but, by the time I found it, whatever merit there might have been when it was first put in place, I could not, to myself, justify it.

You have to remember as well that, as Minister for Industrial Relations, I am, like other ministers, expected to look at where I can find efficiencies within my agency and I have got a lot of different calls on money within the IR portfolio, and certainly within the Attorney-General's portfolio, and when you look at all of them and look at this particular little item and say, 'Does this one have the same degree of priority as, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions?' or something like that, my answer was no.

Mr MARSHALL: In last year's estimates you provided the committee with the information that Stephanie Burke was filling the role of the employee ombudsman. When you provide the information to the committee regarding the termination payment to the previous ombudsman, can you also tell us what the wind-up costs for the agency were, including any termination payments?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think they have all been reabsorbed into other agencies, but I will check.

Mr KNOLL: I appreciate Greg McCarthy is no longer with us, but can we go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 46 and back to the Employment Tribunal? Can the minister explain why the expenses of the tribunal increased by $3.7 million following the receipt of functions from the medical panels, yet the income only increased by $3.1 million? Were there functions that the medical panels undertook that SAET is not going to undertake? What is the reason for the gap? Is this a result of departmental savings or lessening of functions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is probably a very good question but I will need to get back to you with the answer.

Mr KNOLL: This is probably along the same line, if we can go to page 47 and looking at the activity indicators and the number of workers compensation matters lodged. There was quite a sharp increase in applications for an expedited decision. I am just wondering if the minister can explain why.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is in the lead-up to 30 June, if I am not mistaken, and a lot of that is tactical legal manoeuvring to maximise the position of clients by particular lawyers. It was to do with trying to do things within the jurisdiction before the date passed.

Mr KNOLL: I think that Mr McCarthy calls that increased claims activity.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly.

Mr MARSHALL: Also on that page 46 and looking at the targets under the South Australian Employment Tribunal, it says here 'the implementation of a new contemporary case management and associated systems'. Is that what we were referring to before the $300,000 IT spend for the self-insured, or is this another IT system that is being put in place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are not sure. We will check up on that.

Mr MARSHALL: But do you think it is an IT system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Undoubtedly. It is some form of computerised case management tool, no question. There is one operating already within SACAT, and the thought initially was that with maybe some adaptation of the SACAT thing (which is I am advised a commercial off-the-shelf thing) it might be suitable here. But, yes, it is a records management/case management IT system.

Mr MARSHALL: And is there a cost associated with the implementation of this new system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There will be. I will try to find out to the best of my knowledge.

Mr MARSHALL: And also a time frame. It is mentioned as a target for this year, so I think it is reasonable to ask what the system is, what it is going to cost the taxpayers and when it is due for completion.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, okay.

Mr KNOLL: In our last 13 minutes I move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1 and page 53 dealing with State Records.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Mr Simon Froude is here.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr S. Froude, Acting Director, State Records.

Ms T. Blight, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, looking at the highlights 14-15 and targets 15-16, has the government review of the State Records Act been completed yet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is yes.

Mr KNOLL: That is exciting. Can I ask when it was completed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told it was dated late August, but I think I got it a bit later than that.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, late August? Are you saying August last year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and I think I got it in about October, if I am not mistaken. Here is a chronology, very good. This is what I have been looking for. On 28 August, final report; November, cabinet was informed of the final report and of initial assessment of the impact of each recommendation; and on 21 May there was a transition of State Records to AGD (another MoG, a machinery of government change).

And so unfortunately for State Records (and the member for Bright would be very familiar with all of this), DPC is a very unique place in government, and in the difficult transition from DPC through things to become AGD, clearly there was a period where this thing was becalmed because it was from DPC's point of view no doubt something that they were not about to be having to pay attention to, and from our point of view (that is, the AGD point of view) it is something that we had not yet obtained.

We are looking at some proposal to consider a response to each of the recommendations, and I will then be having to take that to cabinet, and the outcome of that I expect would be to draft an amendment bill to the State Records Act.

Mr MARSHALL: In last year's estimates committee you advised that there would be changes made to privacy legislation following on from that State Records review, and in fact you used the word 'imminent' with the way in which you described that legislation that would be brought to the parliament. How is that progressing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To start with, I am very much more careful this year than I was last year about the word 'imminent', I can tell you that.

Mr MARSHALL: Would you say that you were wrong last year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The second thing is that I have learned that my sense of urgency and that of the entire system do not necessarily always find themselves in total alignment.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you blaming the Public Service, sir?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; I am just making an observation. A draft information privacy bill has been prepared for public consultation. Advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office is being sought prior to seeking the approval of cabinet to consult publicly on that document.

Mr MARSHALL: So it is cabinet holding up the process? The draft bill has been done, it is out for consultation—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure it has been to cabinet yet, so I do not think it would be fair to say that cabinet is holding it up.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are holding it up?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is with the Crown Solicitor's Office.

Mr MARSHALL: The Crown Solicitor is holding it up.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just saying that it is with the Crown Solicitor's Office, that is all. Everyone is working.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarity, it has not gone out for consultation yet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Mr MARSHALL: Last year you said that it was going to be released for an eight week consultation period, and you said that was 'imminent'. What is your update? Is it still going to be eight weeks, and what is the update on the proximity to that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it will still be eight weeks, but I am not going to be caught with the word 'imminent' a second time. I will say 'as soon as I can manage it'.

Mr MARSHALL: That could be even longer then; that is even worse than 'imminent'. With respect, I think you should go back to 'imminent'. With regard to the review of State Records, did your review take into account the Electronic Patient Administration System?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe EPAS had anything to do with it.

Mr MARSHALL: Surely that is a very substantial area of State Records?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The advice I have about this is that EPAS was not looked at specifically as a thing in its own right. However, given the fact that that does constitute a record, in effect, for the purposes of the act, it would by default be covered, given that they are electronic records in nature. So I think the answer to the question is that although EPAS was never a target of particular consideration in the review, the fact that EPAS is an electronic data recording system and that it is a state held and managed electronic data recording system, inasmuch as EPAS is one of many systems, yes, the review had something to say about EPAS. However, it was not talking about EPAS itself, if you know what I mean.

Mr MARSHALL: So medical records were not excluded from the review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, they were not.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the scope of the review with regard to medical records?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What I am trying to convey is that I do not think the review chopped things up in that way. It just said that there are electronic data management systems controlled by the government so, 'How should we treatment the material they hold?' rather than saying, 'We have medical records and motor registration records and blah blah blah.' It was more generic.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the audience for the report? Is it for the public or is it for cabinet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Initially it is for cabinet. I do not know if there has been a decision about what is ultimately done with it.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the purpose of the report? Was it to identify where there were some deficiencies in the storage of—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. The terms of reference were that official records are governed by the Records Act of 1997. Clearly, the sheer scale of the electronic communications mechanism within the state government was not contemplated at the time of that original act, and the act has not been updated to take into account those matters. The review said that recent events had highlighted a need to bring forward the next scheduled review of the act and government agency practice in relation to management of records, and that such a review should examine the legislative framework relating to State Records and determine if the required management of records clearly meets the current operational practices of government and the needs of the community. So, the review should provide an opportunity to align the act with the Freedom of Information Act and the state's policy in relation to privacy and enable some inadequacies or gaps in the legislation to be dealt with.

The inquiry was then asked specifically the extent to which electronic communication is used as a means of creating, storing and transferring official records, the extent to which there has been an increase in the volume of records created by government agencies due to increasing reliance on technology and electronic communications, how other jurisdictions have attempted to address these and their degrees of success, and to report on whether the existing legislative framework is appropriately managed or realistically capable of being so managed, including an examination of destruction retention regimes, including official record retention where necessary, and the extent to which the existing framework would be assisted or enhanced by a change in the culture of government agencies and current state records management practices and any legislative drivers required to achieve the same.

Mr MARSHALL: When was that report requested and when was it completed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The request was in September 2013.

Mr MARSHALL: When was it completed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: End of August 2014, 28 August 2014.

Mr MARSHALL: So, a year ago? Almost. Eleven months.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ten months or so, yes. I did explain and I would invite you to have a chat to the member for Bright about the veracity of what I am saying. In the heady world of MoG changes, when things are moving from DPC to AGD, it is not inconceivable that things become becalmed, but I can assure everybody that that period in the doldrums has ended.

Mr MARSHALL: Which minister has responsibility for the management of state medical records, patient records?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The management of the records, I think, would be within the health department. The retention or the proper state record aspect of it is something that sits under the records act and I guess to the extent that they constitute a record and to the extent that there has been a MoG change, that sounds a bit like me.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you, as part of your report, contemplated any risks associated with the implementation of the EPAS system and have you, as the minister responsible for records, contemplated any risk associated with the fact that many of our medical records in South Australia are contained on legacy systems which are no longer supported by the software vendor? In fact, the government currently has a legal case regarding the ongoing use of one of those legacy systems to store patient records.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not aware of the detail of those matters but can I say that I am concerned, obviously, that there are a number of legacy systems sitting around the place in government. Part of the reason for the review here was to look at what, realistically, can be done about dealing with that, both from a practical point of view and also from a policy point of view. At some point we do have to ask the question, and in some respects this might seem a strange analogy, but it is a bit like the question in the child protection area with mandatory reporting.

If you open the front door to so much information and you commit yourself to dealing with so much information eventually it can choke you. The question with the state record keeping, or one of the questions with state record keeping, is ultimately going to be: just how much of this stuff do we actually have to keep, for how long do we keep it and by what mechanism do we decide which to keep and which not to keep? What form do we store it in?

It is a similar question to the mandatory reporting question. We are getting an enormous number of complaints through the front door and once you get them through the front door then what do you do with them? So, it is just one of the questions that we are going to have to grapple with. One of the things that I think the parliament is going to have to think about is the diversity and the volume and the range of these things. The leader raises a good point about the legacy systems, but they are not just in the health department, they are all over the place.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes. Just to clarify: you are the minister responsible for overall management of state records, including state medical records. Are you aware that there are risks associated with those medical records, in particular with regard to the current legacy systems and any legal action which is pending? If you are not aware of it, will you commit to actually undertake to report back to the committee regarding that status?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was not aware of that particular matter, but I am happy to make inquiries and to try to inform myself about that. That said, it does not surprise me that within government agencies there are inadequate record storage and—

Mr MARSHALL: It is a shambles, is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think I used that term. I think I said inadequate.

Mr MARSHALL: Inadequate.

The CHAIR: I draw members' attention to the time. There being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet adjourned and referred to committee B. Then, in accordance with the agreed timetable, I advise all present that the committee stands suspended until 3.45.

Sitting suspended from 15:30 to 15:45.