Electoral Commission of South Australia, $4,676,000

Administered Items for Electoral Commission of South Australia, $461,000

Attorney-General's Department, $93,884,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $76,968,000

Independent Gambling Authority, $1,890,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Chapman, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Sherry, Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr D. Gully, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr I. Clayfield, Chief Financial Officer, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Ms C. Mealor, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: In this session, we are dealing with the Electoral Commission of South Australia and State Records, which is under the Attorney-General's Department. I also need to reopen the Attorney-General's Department and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, which I closed prematurely. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Attorney-General, would you care to introduce your advisers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I introduce to the committee our Electoral Commissioner, Mr Mick Sherry, who is here next to me, and our Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Mr David Gully, to my left. I am sure that both gentlemen are well known to you. Less well known, but equally important, is the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Ian Clayfield, to my further left, and I have some extra advisers behind who look very familiar. I indicate that this is obviously a separate section in our budget because the commissioner has a statutory base.

I place on the record, on behalf of all members in the parliament, my appreciation of the work that has been done in this last financial year which of course, most importantly, included the state election. That is a very significant part of the work of the Electoral Commission, so we appreciate that. It is quite a significant cost, but it is democracy at work. Of course, they are busily embarking in this financial year on that unenviable task of managing the local government elections, so we wish them well in that regard.

We look forward to Mr Sherry's report post the state election in this financial year to inform us as a government, but also as a parliament, as to whether we might need to advance any reforms in respect of the application of the act, particularly in relation to new initiatives, such as public funding and disclosure laws that were operating in this last state election. With that, I invite members of the committee to raise any issues they have.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Member for Kaurna, do you wish to make any statement?

Mr PICTON: No.

The CHAIR: I invite questions but, before I do so, I remind the opposition that they need to read the omnibus questions at some point in the next hour.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much for your guidance and thank you for the witnesses. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 42, the administered item of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. I also refer to the Constitution Act 1934, section 82(2)(c), which states that the commission is to start proceedings within 24 months after each polling day. I ask the Attorney, and via her if she wishes to refer it to the commissioner: will the commissioner seek to start the redistribution process earlier than it was in the previous parliament, considering that the previous process finished so close to the election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I will invite the Electoral Commissioner to give a response to the committee in relation to what his expectations are in that regard. He knows what the law is.

Mr SHERRY: The chair of the redistribution committee will be a judge of the Supreme Court, and that person is appointed by the Chief Justice, so the redistribution committee will not commence until the chair has been appointed. The legislation talks about it happening within two years of the previous election.

Mr PICTON: When will the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court make that invitation to appoint the chair?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the absence, apparently, of giving advice that he has already, I am happy to make that inquiry of the Chief Justice. If that information is able to be provided, I will make sure the committee is informed of that. To the best of my knowledge, if the Chief Justice—not that I think he has to be accountable to me in this regard—has made that determination and I am at liberty to provide it to the committee, I certainly will. If he has not made it and he is happy to indicate his anticipated time frame in that regard and I am able to provide it to the committee, I will do so.

I note that one of the things that held up the previous Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission was identifying who would be around long enough to actually complete the task of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission hearings and determination because, as I recall, there were a couple of senior puisne judges who were reaching retirement or were going to be retired prior to the anticipated conclusion time for the commission. That did seem to delay it a bit. I think there were a couple who were probably due to be the next in line and then were not because of their imminent retirement, and it ultimately fell to Justice Vanstone.

In any event, I will make that inquiry with the Chief Justice. If that information can be available, I will convey it to both the committee and to the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr PICTON: How does it work? Does the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wake up one morning and say, 'Alright, I think it's time under the Constitution Act to start this process'? Or is it a matter where the Electoral Commissioner would give advice to the Supreme Court Chief Justice and say, 'Here are the steps that we think are appropriate and here are the time frames that we think are appropriate,' and then the Chief Justice would consider that advice from the commissioner and then make a determination on the time frames?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will add one or two comments in relation to that and then I will invite the Electoral Commissioner to expand if he feels that there is more information available to committee.

The Chief Justice, whom the committee knows and who has been here this afternoon, is not only presumed to know the law but of course has already been the Chief Justice during the time of preceding electoral boundaries commissions. I accept that he is familiar with the process and understands his role in the appointment and nomination as such of the electoral boundaries commissioner, which, from recollection, is the senior puisne judge on the Supreme Court under the act.

There is a role for the Chief Justice to play in that regard to nominate to that person. I think there is a fallback position in the act, from memory. In any event, from there, I would expect that the Electoral Commission itself would need to undertake its preparations, including the collation of data for the purposes of presenting to the commission. I invite the Electoral Commissioner to perhaps add to any role that he sees his agency contributing in that regard.

Mr SHERRY: There is not much more to add, other than to reinforce the fact that the boundaries commission is totally separate to the Electoral Commission. I am but one member on the boundaries commission, so essentially we are still waiting for an invite for the commission to commence.

Mr PICTON: So you do not provide any advice to the Chief Justice before it is established?

Mr SHERRY: I do not feel it is my position at the moment to do that at this point, bearing in mind there are two years for this to occur. Should those two years start proceeding, I would be seeking to remind the Chief Justice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just following on from that question, given that the last redistribution involved a framework which the parliament, in its wisdom, has since changed—in particular, the so-called 'fairness test'—would you agree that it is likely that there will need to be a potentially significant amount of work involved in the next piece of work, given that the perspective the commission has to bring to the question in front of it has now changed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Commissioner, would you like to make a contribution on that, if you can?

Mr SHERRY: I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on that, to be honest. I am not the chair of the commission. The commission has not been set up yet. I think it is better, once the commission is established, to understand the full work ahead of it.

The CHAIR: I should not have to remind the member for Enfield or the member for Kaurna that questions are directed to the Attorney, please.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy for the Attorney to answer—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I invited the commissioner to answer.

The CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will ask a question on the same topic. Perhaps if I cannot lure you into looking at the future, I might invite you to look into the rear-vision mirror. At the last redistribution, as we know, something was said by the commission about the tolerances that would be acceptable and not acceptable. That was ultimately tested in the Supreme Court, as the framework then was, and found to be correct.

There is a completely different issue I wanted to explore with you. There appear to have been a number of seats. I cannot tell you off the top of my head which ones they are, but I suspect that the Chair's seat might be one of them—

The CHAIR: What was the question?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Notwithstanding the requirement that there be no more than a 10 per cent deviation, some of the calculations appear to have been off, and seats were either more than 10 per cent over or more than 10 per cent under.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, can I just—

The CHAIR: You need to ask a question, member for Enfield.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am explaining what the question is about.

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order goes to the nature of the statement which might become a question. Much as I am loath to interrupt the flow of the former attorney, and much as it brings back happy memories, the statement we are hearing and the question that it might become—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Should you not wait for the question?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is hypothetical.

Mr TEAGUE: —are not directed to—

Mr PICTON: Supposedly.

Mr TEAGUE: I have been listening carefully—

Mr PICTON: He has not asked a question.

Mr TEAGUE: —to the member for Kaurna's questions also, none of which have been directed to any particular line item within the budget, and we are now ranging over questions that would seek the expression of opinion from the Electoral Commissioner, which might be fascinating but has nothing to do with why we are here.

The CHAIR: Actually, member for Heysen, as we have said a number of times, the questions are directed to the Attorney rather than the Electoral Commissioner. Member for Enfield, could you ask your question right now, please.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I get to the question? That was the preamble, exciting as it was for the member for—

Mr ODENWALDER: The prologue.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The prologue.

The CHAIR: There is probably no real need for explanation; please ask the question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The question is: I am not looking for you to go into the future; I am looking at you to go back to the future. Jump in the DeLorean, head back to the last—

The CHAIR: Member for Enfield, could you ask the question, please.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Head back to the last electoral redistribution. What I am asking you is: what would you suggest, on the basis of your experience from there, that could be done better in order to make sure that those going over the boundaries of 10 per cent because of errors, unforeseen changes in population, whatever—where do you think you could have improved that, and you will be able to improve that, in the next cycle? In other words, more integrity around the data—

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Enfield. Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He lost me at 'the rear-vision mirror' to start with, but then my driving is probably the worst in the parliament. It seems that the member is seeking information about how a future electoral boundaries commission will deal with the 10 per cent rule, if I can paraphrase it as that, in a future hearing. Whilst Mr Gully, to my left, as the acting commissioner was a member of the former commission, as has been pointed out by Mr Sherry, the commission is an independent tribunal and it is not yet convened. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to even call on Mr Sherry, if he is likely to be a member of that commission, to guess in relation to this hypothetical question.

What I will say to the member—and I know because we were in debate late at night on the last day of parliament in relation to the abolition of the fairness clause where we had much debate about the 10 per cent rule—is this. That will clearly be a matter for the interpretation of the next commission as to how they might vary, if at all, their approach to the interpretation of the obligations under the act as it now stands.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I accept that point; that is not what I was asking, though.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I remind the member that the 10 per cent is not something that is identified as at the time of the hearing but as at six months prior to the next election. To that degree it is a guesstimate, an informed estimate, but nevertheless it may have some variation ultimately.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My question was not about the law; it was about the technique.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member wishes, in his newly formed position in the parliament, he might have a bit of spare time to present the ALP's submission at the next electoral boundaries commission. In any event, that will be a matter for the next commission as to how (a) they will interpret the law and (b) the model that is to be interpreted. If the ALP is unhappy again with the commission's next decision, I suppose they will go to the Full Court again.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Chairman, through you to the Attorney, I understand her point, which was responsive to my first question, which was about, 'How do you think you will go in the future?' and everyone, perhaps wisely, decided not to answer my question. However, I then had a second question, which was: in terms of the technique, in terms of the methodology, in terms of the sources to which you had regard in assembling your projected data on populations, with the benefit of hindsight, having seen what you did and what the outcome was as it diverged from what would have been objectively the best possible outcome, have you learned anything and, if so, what is it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I will say that that is a matter ultimately before the next commission, so thank you for the question.

Mr CREGAN: While we are in the field of reasonably broad questions and broad preambles, may I ask a reasonably important question that requires some preamble, and that is this: I understand it has been the past practice of the commission to set up polling stations in community halls throughout large rural electorates; I understand that at the last election schools were preferred. Attorney, will there be future expenditure directed towards hiring community halls or is it likely to be the intention of the commission to continue to use school facilities?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the commissioner to answer that.

Mr SHERRY: In relation to polling places, the majority of those are in fact schools, and there is a very good reason for that. Firstly, there is no charge to the taxpayer: it is free. Secondly, most of the schools have had some form of development that makes it easy for people with various disabilities to enter polling places; however, where there is not a suitable location—a school, for example—we would look at the next best available location and that may well be, in fact, a community hall.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 43, key agency outputs, dot point 2, administering, monitoring and reporting on the requirements of the Electoral Act 1985, including donations and campaign expenditure, public funding and special assistance funding claims. Was the Electoral Commission happy with the performance of the online reporting portal that parties and donors were required to use during the last state election, and is the commissioner looking to implement a bespoke online reporting mechanism that is more fit for purpose?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the commissioner to provide any detail in relation to that, but I can inform the committee that it is my understanding that, notwithstanding the arduous task of dealing with local government elections in the immediate future, we will receive, as is the usual practice, a full report from the Electoral Commission in respect of the state election by the end of the year still. I am getting a nod from the commissioner. I want that to be on the record to make sure that we get it.

In all seriousness, the question of public disclosure in exchange, if you will, for the entitlement to public funding was certainly new and I think a challenge for a number of candidates, especially those not in major political parties, but I think, in fairness, even to the major political parties, during the last state election. So I think as a parliament ultimately we will need to consider how we might improve that. In the meantime, in relation to the technology, I will throw to the commissioner to outline any upgrades or proposed changes that he has in mind.

Mr SHERRY: It is correct that we are doing a full evaluation of the election this year, as opposed to in previous instances where it is done the following year, due to us having to deliver the local government elections, which are occurring in November. We are compiling, if you like, all the evaluations to do with the state election of which a large portion, rightly so, involve the funding and disclosure regime.

As you would well be aware, this was the first election to which this legislation was applicable and the first time the portal was used. We have sought feedback from key stakeholders and a number of interesting observations have been put to me in relation to suggested improvements, which we are currently considering.

Mr PICTON: Does the commission believe that they have the resources to properly manage complaints regarding misleading materials published during election periods?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the commissioner to indicate with his budget submission for next year.

Mr SHERRY: It is a challenge managing complaints. Numbers-wise, we had 63 complaints in relation to the Electoral Act in the recent 2018 state election. That compares with 68, I think, in 2014. The advertising complaints authorisations size-wise are relatively easy to manage. The misleading one is a challenge because we rely on information provided to us in order to form a view. We do not have investigative powers as such to go out and interview people.

In answer to your question, most of the delays in finalising misleading complaints are associated with various individuals providing information to us. I am not aware of any complaint in relation to the 2018 state election that took an undue amount of time to finalise that was caused on our side. There were a number that took several months to resolve and that is purely because key parties did not get back to us in the required time.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 45, highlights, conducted during the 2018 election. The Electoral Commission states that Aboriginal voting has increased by 25 per cent. Can you outline what that is attributed to, which polling booths the increase is attributed to and, perhaps on notice, if statistics could be provided with a comparison of polling booth locations and turnout at the last state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. Under highlights, are we?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There was reference to APY voting, which I know is in here somewhere. Page 46—I knew I had read it somewhere. This is in relation to three electorates for female members of the APY Executive Board, is that what you were referring to?

Mr PICTON: No, I was referring to Aboriginal voting across the board for this election. I understand there was a—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thought I had seen that somewhere. There was APY—

Mr PICTON: I understand there was a concerted effort by the Electoral Commission to try to increase Aboriginal voting and that had succeeded.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot find it here, but I am happy to ask the commissioner if he has any data on that. I certainly have a note of the APY voting for the board. I think that was about item 7. Let me see if I have that.

Mr PICTON: I do not think we need it. Essentially, I was just referring to the highlights being that they conducted the election and, as part of that, whether you could outline the statistics in terms of Aboriginal voting.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We have not found the reference, but we have found some information that might be of assistance, so I will invite the commissioner to make a contribution.

Mr SHERRY: One of my priorities with the 2018 state election was to make sure all members of the community had the opportunity, first of all, to be enrolled and also to vote. It is common knowledge that Aboriginal people are under-represented on the roll, as well as having low participation rates. In recognition of that, we spent considerable time, in particular in the APY lands, undertaking a number of strategies, which included engaging local community members to be Aboriginal information officers. Part of their role was to encourage people, first of all, to enrol and also to vote. We engaged two former AFL footballers, who are well recognised and resonate within the Aboriginal community, as ambassadors to encourage local community members to enrol and vote. That was an outstanding success.

We also partnered with the Australian Electoral Commission and TAFE SA to do a number of activities to encourage community members to fill out enrolment forms and obviously get on the roll to enable them to vote. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the exact figures, but certainly enrolment in the APY lands increased in the vicinity of 15 per cent and turnout was about 17 per cent above 2014.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The only other information that I can perhaps add is that, in addition to a significant increase in the enrolment percentage, I am advised that polling facilities were open for 57 per cent more hours, that is, 41.5 hours compared with 26.4 hours in the 2014 election, which obviously increased the accessibility for voting. Whether that translated into extra votes, I cannot be clear on, but there was an increase.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, last question for this examination.

Mr PICTON: Very quickly connected to that, if the Attorney could take the second part of my question on notice, in terms of what polling booth that was attributed to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: How many polling booths?

Mr PICTON: No, which polling booths the increase in Aboriginal voting was attributed to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that on notice. I will get some information. It may have been more than one.

Mr PICTON: Great. Thank you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a mobile booth, from memory. The commissioner is happy to answer if the committee is happy to give an extra minute.

Mr SHERRY: I personally went up to the APY lands on two occasions to listen to the community members to get an understanding of how best we could accommodate their needs. The feedback provided to me was to spend longer in the locations than electoral commissions previously had. Taking that on board, we certainly increased the time at locations. For example, previously we might attend a location for three hours; we would then extend that to six hours to give local community members an opportunity to vote. The locations are not fixed as such; we go to the various communities based on numbers.

Mr PICTON: Would you take on notice the question in terms of the stats?

Mr SHERRY: Yes.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolios the Electoral Commission of South Australia and State Records to be completed. Thank you committee.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Soulio, Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr S. Bedford, Senior Regulatory Officer, Consumer and Business Services.

Ms C. Mealor, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Corcoran, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: For the committee's information, the next portfolio to be examined is the Consumer and Business Services and the Independent Gambling Authority. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements in Volume 1. While the Attorney is getting settled, I might throw to the member for Elizabeth, who is going to read the omnibus questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: The omnibus questions are:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000, engaged between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018 by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the estimated total cost of the work, the work undertaken and the method of appointment?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the forecast expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 for the 2018-19 financial year to be engaged by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

3. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2017-18 and budgeted cost for 2018-19.

4. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) The name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund;

(g) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund; and

(h) Whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instructions 15.

5. For the period of 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) The total number of FTEs in that department or agency;

(b) The number of FTEs by division and/or business unit within the department or agency; and

(c) The number of FTEs by classification in each division and/or business unit within the department or agency.

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

(a) How much is allocated to be spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) How many of the TVSPs are estimated to be funded?

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

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2018-19 please provide the number of public servants broken down into headcount and FTE's that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

9. Between 30 June 2017 and 17 March 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

10. Between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

11. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

12. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

13. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees are there at 30 June 2018 and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of employee and the total cost of the employee?

The CHAIR: I invite the Attorney to make a short statement if she wishes and also to introduce her advisers for this session.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I very quickly say thank you to the Director of State Records, Mr Simon Froude. He did not attract any questions in today's estimates; nevertheless, he and his division have been very helpful in providing information to my office. I wanted to place that on the record and also thank him for a visit to his premises at Cavan, which was a very interesting inspection and viewing of what they do out there. I thank them for their work.

In relation to Consumer and Business Services, to my left is the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Mr Dini Soulio. To my right is the reappearance of my chief executive, Ms Caroline Mealor. To my far left is the ever-effervescent Chief Financial Officer, Mr Andrew Swanson, back and ready to go.

In relation to this area, whilst as a new government we were disappointed that the gambling review undertaken by Mr Tim Anderson QC had been kept under wraps for a long time—in fact, for nearly two years—it was a commitment of the government, and we have since tabled a redacted report and announced our initiative in relation to the consolidation of gaming management and gambling as a direct result of the recommendations of that review. I read in the paper, I think today or yesterday—it blurs into one—a reference to some further work being sought by the police in respect of some extension of their powers.

Had this report been available two years ago or had we been able to view the submission of South Australia Police, that may have been a matter that could have been acted on more quickly. There are a number of other recommendations, including that in this report, which has now been produced and which we have tabled. It is the commitment of the government to review the balance of those and look at how we might address that, including some aspects in relation to Club One, which were some other strong recommendations. I ask the committee to note that we are not ignoring those. We saw the principal recommendations in relation to the IGA as the priority, and we have acted on it in this budget.

The CHAIR: Questions, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Attorney, following an excellent report by the Economic and Finance Committee a while ago, the then attorney-general introduced legislation to regulate the labour hire industry. That commenced on 1 March this year, and enforcement was to commence on 1 September this year. I understand that you now intend to repeal the act that allows this scheme to operate. Can you tell the committee what the rationale is for repealing this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I think we are at page 44, for the benefit of other committee members.

Mr ODENWALDER: I beg your pardon. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 44.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it is the government's intention to repeal the act. The position of the government has not changed since the issues were raised in opposition when this legislation passed. The act, as it passed, has not been brought into operation at this stage in any event. Although it was a bill that purported to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation, and obviously illegal conduct towards them in relation to their employment, we felt that the regulation that was going to apply was far too broad. Whilst the former government had indicated that they were prepared to look at exemptions, it became very clear that there was only a small area of application that may even need to be captured, if at all.

More importantly, this was legislation that was covered by other areas of law and therefore was a regulatory regime of licensing about which we maintain the view that it has not been necessary. To ensure that there is a complete consideration of the matter, it is proposed that a committee be established and that it will review the current laws and laws that have since been advanced in the commonwealth arena since the debate on this matter.

Unsurprisingly, we have had an enormous amount of response from our announcement positively that their industries will not be caught up in this mountain of red tape in relation to its application. I have met with Mr Szakacs from SA Unions a few times. In any event, I had not heard from him since the change of government in relation to the application of this law or otherwise, but he did write to me and seek an appointment to discuss this matter, and I think I am seeing him either tomorrow or the next day.

Apart from his letter, there has been an overwhelming response to my office indicating relief from those who had been seeking some clarity on the application of this law and who had had some indication from the former attorney-general that exemptions were going to apply but who nevertheless felt that the umbrella or scope of this legislation was unfair. Yes, that is the government's decision, and we will announce the task force-type group that will be charged with making sure that we are up to date, but should any members of the committee become aware of or have reported to them—

Mr ODENWALDER: There is a very good Economic and Finance Committee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —any act of exploitation of employees in the workplace, I would urge them to report the matter. Unfortunately, SafeWork SA is the agency—

Mr ODENWALDER: If only there was a scheme.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —for the protection of workplace employees, safety in the workplace, and that is under review at the moment. It has had a few problems, clearly, but nevertheless we hope that it would be up and in order again. However, there are authorities to which to report illegal or exploitative behaviour of any employer, and I would urge members to report it to the appropriate authorities if they felt there were any breach of the law in this regard.

Mr ODENWALDER: Attorney, did you receive any written submissions from anyone following the election suggesting that this scheme should be changed or repealed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Quite a number, and I will ask Mr Soulio to outline the number—

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you provide copies of those submissions to the committee?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and the nature of the submissions, and he can indicate whether or not they are available publicly. I will ask Mr Soulio to answer that.

Mr SOULIO: I understand that a number of representations were made to the Attorney's office, and we will have to take on notice whether they are to be released. I would need the permission of the people who have written them to release them. I will take that on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that a number of those, if I am right, have been referred on to the commissioner's office for his information because, obviously, there was some regulatory process being reviewed as a result of the legislation that had previously passed, but, yes, certainly there are a number of them.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will Mr Soulio be managing the task force or the committee that is being set up?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I certainly hope that he will be on it, but that is yet to be determined.

Mr ODENWALDER: Attorney, did any stakeholders who made submissions meet with members of the Liberal Party before the election or since the election or ever attend a Liberal Party fundraiser?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a fair way back.

Mr ODENWALDER: You can take it on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take it on notice. I know I spoke to the bill in the House of Assembly; I can remember that much. I do not think I was in charge of it in committee, but I may have been; there are so many. I am pretty sure I spoke about the proposed penalties, particularly the imposition of imprisonment for up to three years, to which I had a strong objection, as a member of the then House of Assembly. I can recall a number of wine industry personnel met with us. I just cannot remember the name of their organisation.

Mr ODENWALDER: You can take it all on notice, if you like.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. These were people who were saying, 'Look, if this is intended to deal with people who are brought in from overseas and who are badly treated or exploited, this is not us. We have a proper process,' etc. I am sure they were putting the same—

Mr ODENWALDER: They policed themselves, in effect.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They were putting the same presentations to the then government that this proposed legislation, even its coverage, was just far too great to be justified in establishing a whole licensing structure. If the guilty are out there and allegations are made, they should be brought to account, but the innocent should be relieved of this type of umbrella of suffocating regulatory red tape.

Mr ODENWALDER: Since it came into operation, without the enforcement and to the point you decided or announced that you were going to repeal the scheme, how many businesses sought licences? What is the quantum dollar amount of those businesses seeking licences and will they be reimbursed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer. I am just informed by the commissioner that he does not have the number with him, but he can take it on notice and provide the information to the committee. I hope this is of assistance to the committee: in the time since the legislation passed, post March 17, as Attorney-General I have not received any correspondence of complaint, that I am aware of, in relation to exploitative conduct, instances of which need to be protected.

That does not necessarily mean that people out in the industry or the unions who might be representing some of these people would necessarily write to me as, Attorney-General, but I am just not aware of any complaint in that arena. I will just check whether the commissioner has received anything along the lines of, 'Can you hurry up with this legislation because XYZ is happening and we need to be able to act on it?'

Mr SOULIO: No, no complaints have come to my office. I assume that, where there are existing concerns, they have gone to the relevant regulatory agencies such as the Fair Work Ombudsman, the tax office or SafeWork SA, etc.

Mr PICTON: I also reference page 44 and the government's new ticket scalping legislation. Can you outline how many FTEs the commissioner will be allocating to enforce the new ticket scalping act?

Mr SOULIO: We are still working through the resourcing in relation to that piece of work. At this stage, one person is assigned to it. They will be working through the implementation of enforcement, and that is largely desk-based, looking at online sales. Subject to how that progresses, I have the flexibility within my investigation and compliance workforce to move resources around depending on priority and need.

Mr PICTON: So this one person will be like the ticket scalping sheriff in town?

Mr SOULIO: Possibly; they will not have a badge and a coat.

Mr PICTON: Will they be actively doing investigations, or will it be passive and waiting for people to complain, and then investigating after that?

Mr SOULIO: We will be working through both proactive and reactive compliance options. We will certainly have someone who is looking at it. When we have looked at this previously, when an event is coming up, we will throw some more resources at that particular event, so we will have one full-time funded person. But, when there is an event coming up, like a major concert or a major final, we throw out some more resources to do some proactive scouring, but we will also then be responding to complaints in relation to ticket scalping opportunities.

We need to rely on members of the public to refer those to us where they find them so that we can then respond and address that conduct. With all our enforcement activity, we look for complaints from the public in a reactive way but also proactive responses where we can identify those breaches.

Mr PICTON: When will that person be starting in that role?

Mr SOULIO: Once the legislation is through, and we have confirmed that the legislation will be through, we will then look to recruit that person.

Mr PICTON: They do not work already within CBS; you would recruit from outside for that position?

Mr SOULIO: We have not worked that through. It may be that one of our current investigators or compliance officers slides across to be responsible for that, and we backfill that position with the funding, or we bring in someone separate to do that. Ideally, we have someone who has that experience within my office to step into that and we backfill them, but I have not finalised the details of it.

Mr PICTON: You do not have a particular target date of when that is likely to occur?

Mr SOULIO: With the vagaries of parliamentary process, I would rather not commit a funding resource until I know that the legislation is going to get through.

Mr ODENWALDER: I apologise for jumping around a little, Attorney. Still on page 44, can I go back to the labour hire scheme. For argument's sake, should the legislation to repeal the scheme not pass this parliament, will you continue to instruct CBS not to enforce those laws?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: You are able to do that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Ad infinitum, those laws will not be enacted, or they will not be enforced, I should say.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, my understanding is that that is right. Obviously, the law has to be proclaimed and it has to have regulations to actually be effective. The second part has not occurred.

Mr ODENWALDER: The regulations have not passed; is that what you are saying? The regulations have not been set?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I understand it, the regulations have not even been presented to the parliament at this stage.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think so.

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

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member for Enfield is inquiring whether the regulations had been tabled—not to my knowledge.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, through you, Mr Chairman, I have a vague recollection of having seen something about the regulations having been set aside or in some other way amended in the Legislative Council, but I may be wrong about that.

The CHAIR: Was that a statement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will just make some inquiry about that.

Mr ODENWALDER: In any case, you have the authority to continue to instruct that those laws are not enforced, whether the regs are passed or not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the regulations have passed, but there is a motion to disallow them in the Legislative Council.

Mr ODENWALDER: There is a motion sitting on the table.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. In relation to the operation of laws, obviously it is up to government, I have learned, to identify what parts of acts are to commence, what are proclaimed when they come through the system of the parliament.

I have certainly been disappointed to note, after becoming the Attorney-General, that a very particular aspect of law relating to the mental capacity of persons under the influence of drugs and alcohol in respect of criminal matters, an amendment of this parliament that had been added to the legislation during the debates, was never proclaimed. That was over a year ago. It is very concerning to me to note that governments would actually act, parliament having made a determination on a matter, to then say of its own volition, 'We are going to ignore that. We are just not going to proclaim a certain section.'

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman: is this relevant to the budget line of CBS?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is relevant to the request put to me about the application of laws, and in particular the labour hire law, in the event that it was not successfully repealed in the parliament. The second area of law brought to my attention before the election was the decision of the government when they had lost the long fight to stop a commissioner for children being appointed. They then decided they would not proclaim—

Mr PICTON: Chairman, this has gone way off track. The Attorney is just trying to suck up time to avoid scrutiny.

The CHAIR: I accept the point of order. Attorney, could you wrap up that answer, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They will not proclaim the important human rights of—

Mr PICTON: You are defying the Chair now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He said to wrap up.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Member for Florey, you have a question.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, program 16, page 44. What role does Consumer and Business Services play in looking into complaints about unreasonable fees for car parking, particularly at places like the Airport and hospitals, where fees are a burden on sick people and families and friends supporting them? I note the government has committed $70,000, in Budget Paper 2 on page 73, to making hospital car parking more affordable. I am wondering how you are going to allocate that amount of money.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just find page 73, but in the meantime I will invite the commissioner to indicate if he has any information on complaints about car parking.

Mr SOULIO: Just for the chief finance officer, can you repeat the reference for the $70,000.

Ms BEDFORD: I am told that it is Budget Paper 2, page 73. Are you not aware of the $70,000 for hospital car parking?

Mr SOULIO: That is not for Consumer and Business Services.

Ms BEDFORD: The reference is about the fact that I am wondering what Consumer and Business Services does to look into complaints about unreasonable parking fees, and I just added that $70,000 bit as an aside.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can we just clarify this: the $70,000 is in relation to an initiative to contribute towards costs of parking—

Ms BEDFORD: At hospitals, which is an acknowledgement that they are obviously too high. That being the subtext of it all, what are you doing overall for the exorbitant prices that people are asked to pay at places like the Airport and other hospitals, particularly the ones I care about. Obviously I care about all of them, but some more than others. I am wondering what you are able to do to help people who are finding car parking fees exorbitant.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I invite the member to perhaps raise with the Minister for Health the item in relation to subsidy to car parking.

Ms BEDFORD: I will do tomorrow.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that may help in answer to that, the reason for that or how that is to apply. In relation to any complaint about car parking, I invite the commissioner to make a contribution.

Mr SOULIO: I can indicate that I am not aware of any complaints to my office in relation to the price of car parking.

Ms BEDFORD: Oh, I think historically there have been plenty. We will have to dig those out for you.

Mr SOULIO: I am happy to. Like I said, I am not—

Ms BEDFORD: The member for Enfield looks like he is going to contribute.

The CHAIR: I think, member for Florey, we will give the opportunity to answer. What Mr Soulio is saying is that his office has not received any complaints.

Mr SOULIO: I am happy to clarify. As I indicated, I am not aware of complaints in relation to the price of car parking, but I know anecdotally that people are concerned. I have had people certainly raise concerns in relation to the prices of general things at the Airport. I do not have any levers as the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs in relation to pricing of those sorts of items. Where there are market forces at play, unfortunately I cannot get involved in those fees.

If there are complaints in relation to the price of parking, as I said, I am not aware of them personally, but certainly I anticipate the response from my office would have been along the lines of, 'We don't control those prices and don't have levers in relation to that to address the price of parking in those sort of environments.'

The CHAIR: Last question, member for Kaurna.

Ms BEDFORD: I had one that followed on from that, which was around aged care. If there are complaints about aged care—

The CHAIR: Okay, member for Florey, you have the call. I will come back to the member for Kaurna.

Ms BEDFORD: I will be very quick. Part of your stated aim is to protect and enhance public trust. I want to know about proactive measures you might be taking to investigate and safeguard vulnerable South Australians from exploitation when they are in for-profit aged-care or nursing homes, given the fact that the federal government accreditation scheme approves nearly every home to 100 per cent when we know that things are not always—

The CHAIR: And the question, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: Is there any mechanism in Business and Consumer Affairs to investigate complaints?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is federal.

Ms BEDFORD: I know it is federal, but in the end our South Australian people are in these places waiting for measures to take place that may take two years to take place. If people complain to you, are you going to be able to do anything about it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member for Enfield has helpfully assisted the committee, I think everyone has heard that the general complaints process is at a federal level, because that is the regulation. A committee of this parliament recently looked into elder abuse, and I think that covered both home and institutional care. I think it is fair to say that an enormous amount of work needs to be done in relation to elder-care abuse.

A national inquiry is being undertaken at present. Not only are people vulnerable by being frail aged, but they are sometimes vulnerable in their own homes due to financial deprivation by other family members or a spouse, for example. That is probably the most common example I hear about anecdotally as Attorney-General. At the moment, the regulatory process is federal. One only has to read the Oakden report to see some of the limitations or shortcomings in relation to a facility where there were residents with aged and mental health comorbidities.

The member is quite right: it is an important issue, but I think it is appropriate that we look at it as conscientiously as we can. It is certainly on the national agenda of attorneys-general and something the federal government have indicated they are going prioritise. A royal commission into the institutional care of senior members of our community is being looked at as well, and we will see what falls out from that, but certainly there is some work being done at the moment.

I hope the member will also appreciate that one of the things we have been pushing for is to have the power of attorney law readdressed. The South Australian Law Reform Institute has looked into this, as the member for Enfield would be aware, and we are keen to advance law reforms in that regard as well. It is important that we protect the vulnerable. People in this category have served our country, raised families and contributed to our economy in their lifetime, and they ought to have protection and an opportunity to have the best time of their lives.

Ms BEDFORD: Given that some of them do not have two years of life left—

The CHAIR: Member for Florey—

Ms BEDFORD: —two years might be a long time to wait.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, supplementary questions are not necessarily part of the format today, but thank you for taking part. The final question for the day goes to the member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chairman. This could be a quick yes or no answer if the Attorney is so minded. I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 17, on the introduction of higher liquor licensing fees. Is the Attorney-General committed to realising all the $3.2 million in revenue foreshadowed in this measure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member would be aware that Mr Anderson QC, who undertook the gambling review, also undertook a liquor licensing review. The former government passed legislation to introduce significant amendments, such as streamlining licences, the protection of minors and all those things. This included a very significant change of regime for fees.

We felt, in coming into government, that the proposed annual fee increases across the licensed classes were too oppressive. As such, we settled on a model to introduce the $3.2 million, which was less than the recommended proposal. I think the regulations in relation to that are going out to consultation shortly. There are some examples that might be helpful—

Mr PICTON: But are you committing to the full $3.2 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —in relation to the fees—

Mr PICTON: Yes, are you committed to the full revenue target?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If a premises with a hotel has a capacity of up to 200 people and trades up until 2am, it currently pays $805 in liquor licensing fees. Under the Anderson review, the fee would have increased to $2,000. Under our proposed fee, it will be $1,600, which will be a maximum of $4.38 a day, with further discounts depending on the licence situation applied. A restaurant or cafe currently holding a restaurant licence which is licensed to trade in liquor until 2am and has a capacity of 350 has a current annual fee of $115. If the premises is located in a regional area, they are entitled to a 25 per cent discount. Under the Anderson review, the fee suggested would be $1,000; the fee proposed by the government, however—

Mr PICTON: Chairman, point of order: my question was quite specific. I did not ask for an outline of every fee under the proposal; I just asked whether or not she is committed to the $3.2 million target.

The CHAIR: This is last question of the day. Attorney, could you wrap up your answer, please.

Mr PICTON: Say yes or no and we can be all finished.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Yes? Okay.

The CHAIR: Thank you. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolios of Consumer and Business Affairs and the Independent Gambling Authority, and the estimate of payments for the Attorney-General's Department and the Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department to be completed.

At 16:55 the committee adjourned to Tuesday 25 September 2018 at 09:00.