Electoral Commission of South Australia, $5,178,000

Administered Items for Electoral Commission of South Australia, $484,000

Attorney-General's Department, $162,125,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $49,552,000

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 A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr I. Clayfield, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr S. Froude, Director, State Records.

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to the last session of committee A. The portfolio is the Electoral Commission of South Australia and State Records, and the minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and call on the Attorney to introduce her advisers and make a short statement if she wishes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am very pleased to introduce to you, Mr Chairman and the committee, Mr Sherry to my right, who is the Electoral Commissioner in South Australia, and Mr David Gully to my left, who is the second most important person in the Electoral Commission.

The CHAIR: Are you happy to take questions, Attorney, or would you like to make a statement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Absolutely I am happy to take questions.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 12, which references the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. Has the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission been convened and the redistribution process commenced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think, as I provided to the committee earlier today, late last week Her Honour Justice Trish Kelly was appointed and gazetted as the electoral boundaries commissioner and she will take up that role with, as per the statute, Mr Sherry as the Electoral Commissioner and Mr Barrett as the Surveyor General in South Australia. They form the commission and they will in due course meet and set out a program for the undertaking of that responsibility over the next year or so.

Mr PICTON: So that has not occurred yet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge, it has not occurred yet.

Mr PICTON: Are any of your advisers able to confirm whether that has or has not occurred yet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The gazettal was only last Friday.

Mr PICTON: They could have met between then and now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is possible. As I advised the committee earlier today, once the commission have met and set out a program of the hearings, the submission dates and the like, they will be published. They have a website, and that will be set out for that to occur.

Mr PICTON: Does the Electoral Commissioner have a time frame in which that will occur?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a matter for the commission to determine that, not just the Electoral Commissioner. The judge would need to meet with both the Electoral Commissioner and Mr Barrett as the Surveyor General. As a three-member commission, they will need to set and approve their program. At this stage, member for Kaurna, I think you will probably appreciate that that is an exercise that takes place over a number of months. It usually involves the collection of considerable data that is prepared for the commission. They take submissions. They present a draft report, invite further submissions and then complete a final report.

Mr PICTON: Has the Electoral Commissioner prepared any advice for the boundaries commission on the timetable for that work?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am advised at this stage. In any event, that would be a matter for the commission to announce what their program will be ultimately.

Mr PICTON: Do any of your advisers have information about what the Electoral Commissioner has prepared for the commission in terms of a timetable?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They may but, as I indicated, that would be a matter for Her Honour Justice Kelly as the electoral boundaries commissioner. When she is ready to do so, she will no doubt make the announcement.

Mr PICTON: When it comes to determining the boundaries, can the Attorney, or with her advice from the commissioner, detail that DPTI will provide population projection data for the 18-plus population at a census collection district level?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I do not confirm that and I think, again, that is a matter entirely for Her Honour to set the program and make the announcements as to how she is going to conduct her commission.

Mr PICTON: Will the Electoral Commission provide and apply a voter eligibility lens over the data that is prepared for the boundaries commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I think that is a matter that is appropriately asked ultimately post any announcement of the electoral boundaries commissioner.

Mr PICTON: Who undertook the work to determine the elector to population ratio for the previous boundaries commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will make some inquiry on that, although I note that Mr Sherry probably was not in that role at that time, but I will ask.

Mr PICTON: Your other adviser, I think, was.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could we have the question again as to the data?

Mr PICTON: Yes. Who undertook the work to determine the elector to population ratio?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the last boundaries commission?

Mr PICTON: Correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am struggling to see where that is in the budget, but I am happy to ask the question. It was work undertaken by the boundaries commission, which at that stage comprised Mr Gully, Justice Vanstone and Mr Burdett.

Mr PICTON: Was there any external advice provided in that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Like what? I am struggling to find what is relevant here to the budget—

Mr PICTON: Were there population advices?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —for something that was three years ago.

Mr PICTON: Did the DPTI planning people provide advice? Any number of people could have provided advice on that. What you are suggesting is that those three people just sat down and worked out the numbers themselves.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not at all. I am just simply indicating that the material that was before the previous commission that they informed themselves on is, I suggest, not a matter for the work of this committee. It may well be all available on the website from the previous boundaries commission, but that really is a different commission, a different time and not the subject of any funding from this budget either last year or this year or the forward estimates because it was three years ago, four years ago.

Mr PICTON: Has the Electoral Commission undertaken any work evaluating or reviewing the ratios between electors and population since the last boundaries commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I will make that inquiry of the current Electoral Commissioner. No.

Mr PICTON: Will the commissioner review how the population projections are calculated, considering that the final population figures were noticeably different from the projections with a number of seats' populations falling outside of the 10 per cent tolerance under the Constitution Act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am assuming that that is a question within the context for the purposes of the electoral boundaries commission. Again, I suggest that that is probably not appropriate to be either asked or answered here. That is a matter for Her Honour to determine what information she receives, relies on or otherwise informs the commission on for the purposes of the forthcoming electoral boundaries commission, the redistribution hearings.

Mr PICTON: Has the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure given data to the Electoral Commission in terms of population or population projections following the 2018 election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will make that inquiry. No.

Mr PICTON: I will move on to the next item.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mercifully.

Mr PICTON: I can go back, if you like. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 12, regarding objectives encouraging the community to participate with confidence and trust in the democratic process. In that context, does the Attorney-General believe that the 6am Liberal Party push polling instils confidence and trust in the democratic process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have already answered that question.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, Chair.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Member for Heysen, I take your point of order. The Attorney has chosen to answer it by saying that she has already answered the question, so that is the response. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Has the Attorney-General sought advice from the Electoral Commissioner on whether the Liberal Party robocalls broke the law?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney-General agree that the Liberal Party would have breached the Telecommunications (Telemarketing and Research Calls) Industry Standard with its robocalls?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have already answered that.

Mr PICTON: Is the Attorney-General aware of any prosecution by the Electoral Commissioner of the Liberal Party over the robocalls?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 14, highlights, dot points 1 and 2. Have you decided which of the recommendations from the 2018 state election report you intend to proceed with?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have made some assessment on that and that is under consideration, of course. At this stage, it will go to cabinet and then ultimately be presented to the parliament. That is the usual process.

Mr PICTON: What is the process that you are undertaking internally to determine the recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have received the report, I have read it and I have received advice on it. The next stage is to identify what can be achieved and what can be recommended. Sometimes recommendations come. If you remember reading the report, there are a number of recommendations, some of which, if implemented, would come at a cost. There is the usual process within government where that sort of information is sourced of other departments—Treasury and the like. They then ultimately go to cabinet to consider and make decisions on what is advanced on behalf of the government.

Mr PICTON: Are you conducting any consultation in terms of those recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, and there will be more if they get past stage 1.

Mr PICTON: Have you conducted any consultation with the Liberal Party of Australia in regard to those recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not yet, but some of them would be relevant to political parties. Sometimes in those circumstances obviously it is appropriate that we consult, as a government, with interested political parties, and I do not see any different to this course in relation to that particular aspect of reform. They may not all be advanced. For example, we have, from memory, a unique provision in South Australia for the action that can be taken if assessed by the Electoral Commissioner that there is false or misleading material published in the lead-up to an election. That in itself has some challenges.

The Electoral Commissioner has highlighted some of these in his report and recommended some reform in that area. Whether we action them, of course, is yet to be seen, but that is the type of thing I would think political parties generally will be interested in.

Mr PICTON: Have you consulted with, discussed the recommendations with or corresponded about the recommendations with Ms Sascha Meldrum from the Liberal Party of South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have certainly spoken to her about them. I suppose for anyone else who is interested in these things the recommendations are on the public record. They have been tabled in the parliament. There are some usual suspects, which the member for Kaurna probably knows about, each time we have this type of report or there is an electoral boundaries commission being undertaken.

We have some people who take a really active interest in these things. Sometimes they do not always make a really constructive contribution to the consideration of these matters, but they are the usual suspects. As a general rule, though, in relation to electoral reform, political parties are the biggest group of interested parties and stakeholders for the purposes of that reform. There will also obviously be people, like the Law Society of South Australia, who will no doubt have a view on these matters.

Mr PICTON: Have you discussed the recommendations with the directors of any other political parties?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, other than I did speak to one of the counsel for the Australian Labor Party after the report had been published. This was counsel in previous boundary commissions I happened to see at an event.

Mr PICTON: But not an official—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not on an official basis, no.

Mr PICTON: So the only official you have talked to about these recommendations is the State Director of the Liberal Party?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would not say it is the only person. I just simply make the point—

Mr PICTON: The only official of a political party.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The only official of a political party?

Mr PICTON: Correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is right, although I am not sure whether Mr Parnell is an official in the Greens Party as well as being a member of parliament. I am not sure.

Mr PICTON: Why is it appropriate that only one political party should be consulted with about these recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just make the point that after the report was published, it became a topic of interest to those people around us, including your and my colleagues here in the parliament who take an interest in these matters, and accordingly there have been conversations about that. Some of them are quite fleeting and I would expect that. I do not see that as part of a formal consultation. I think you started with the question: have you spoken to anyone else about these? I would say yes. I have probably even spoken to you, Mr Chairman, about some of the recommendations of the report.

Not everyone in the parliament reads these reports with interest. I am sorry to tell the Electoral Commissioner that not everyone finds it such an avid and interesting read, but I do and I know the member for Kaurna does. No doubt we will work through his wise recommendations and consider them in the parliament in due course.

Mr PICTON: Will you be conducting consultations with any other political parties before you reach your final decision from the government in terms of the recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would expect, more than likely.

Mr PICTON: How is the operational review different from the election report?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are a number of reports that come from elections. There is the operational report, in the sense of the outcomes. There is a statistical volume that is published, which was fairly recently published and is available online. There have been two specific reviews. One sets out matters such as pre-polling and recommendations generally arising out of the election, and that is one body of work that I have referred to.

Then there is a report we are expecting to receive in the next couple of days, which is the review of the Electoral Commissioner of the funding and disclosure laws that applied for the first time in South Australia at the last state election. I understand from indications from the previous report that this will be a second body of work that relates to that particular aspect, and we look forward to receiving it here in the parliament. I think I receive it and I think the parliament receives it directly from the Electoral Commissioner; is that right?

Mr SHERRY: It was provided today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was provided today? There we go.

Mr PICTON: Did the operational review make any different recommendations from the election report?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to take on notice any recommendations that were different.

Mr PICTON: Would any of your advisers have that information—perhaps the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think you need to be a little bit more specific.

Mr PICTON: I do not know how more specific I can be. Did the operational review that you have apparently just received make any different recommendations than the previous election report that has been publicly released?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we are at cross-purposes. Perhaps I did not make it clear. The first report related to the summary of the election outcomes and set out a number of recommendations, for example, relating to pre-polling and matters I mentioned before about reform. The report that has just been received, which the commissioner has just indicated he has provided today, is specifically a report in relation to the operation of the funding and disclosure obligations under the legislation that was passed first effective at the last election, so it is a different area of work.

I have not read it yet because I have only just been informed, as the committee has, that he provided a copy of it today. When we have had a chance to look at it, no doubt we will advance any recommendations in it for reform by virtue of having a discussion. I expect you, member for Kaurna, will have some discussion with your people as well when you read it to see whether it is something that can be advanced.

Mr PICTON: The 2018 election turnout was 91.1 per cent, which was down 1 per cent from the previous 2014 election. What does the Electoral Commissioner advise is the reason for this drop and what is being attempted by the Electoral Commissioner to arrest the reduction in turnout?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that data in front of me. Did you infer that from one of the pages in the budget?

Mr PICTON: No, I believe that data is from the election report. Obviously, one of the outcomes of the services provided by the Electoral Commissioner is to ensure the conduct of elections and make sure that they are provided for as many South Australians as possible. I would have thought that this would be a factor that the Electoral Commissioner would be analysing and considering whether any responses were applicable in the delivery of its budget.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He may have, but I do not recall that being presented as part of his budget submission for the purposes of suggesting, for example, 'Look, we have had a reduced turnout. There is a population reduction or some other impediment to voting, so I do not need as much money as I had last time. I might need a bit less,' or alternatively, 'These are the flaws of ensuring that everyone comes along to vote who should come along to vote, so I need some more money.'

I do not recall either of those things being presented to us as anything that would suggest there is an out of the ordinary reason people had not voted and therefore action needs to be taken for that to occur. I will ask the Electoral Commissioner whether there is anything else he would like to add.

Mr SHERRY: You are correct in saying there was a 1 per cent drop from the 2014 state election, but that is consistent with participation rates in other jurisdictions as well. It is a matter of focus for us, and we will be ensuring that we will be doing as much as possible to alleviate that in the next state election.

Mr PICTON: What will that focus involve?

Mr SHERRY: As part of our evaluation of the 2018 state election, we did a number of elector surveys and the like, so there will be analysis of those results to try to determine the best way to ensure that (1) people are enrolled and (2) they are aware of their voting options, and also to conduct a formal vote.

Mr PICTON: There was an increase in informal votes as well. Do you know the reason behind that?

Mr SHERRY: No.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps I could just assist the committee to enable us to move on. Page 48 of the document referred to, member for Kaurna, actually suggests the answer to what the expectation was. If you read to the bottom of that paragraph, it says:

In 2018, the growth of the electoral roll as a consequence of the federal direct enrolment program and a surge in enrolments for the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, may to some extent have negatively affected the turnout rate through the addition to the roll of electors who had previously avoided enrolling and did not wish to vote.

Mr PICTON: In 2018—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, can I just interrupt. I am trying to help: just a reminder that State Records are also in this examination. You may or may not want to go there, but it is up to you.

Mr PICTON: No, I will stick with the Electoral Commission. Thank you for your assistance, Chair. In 2018, there were three fewer polling booths compared with 2014. Which polling booths did not open in 2018 that were previously open in 2018?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: None in my electorate, I can tell you that. I am advised that perhaps there were some in the South-East, but we will take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Always my focus is the electorate of Bragg, as you can imagine.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There was talk some years ago of taking out the Piccadilly box and I thought that was a little unfair, seeing as it was not far from Crafers, but people had an expectation that they would be able to continue to vote there. Uraidla was in the same area, and Summertown. Anyway, I now have an excellent member who has taken over half that area from the seat of Bragg.

Mr PICTON: Uraidla residents are very happy being in Morialta now, I understand. Given that there were three fewer polling booths last election, how do you explain the increase of 159 polling staff in 2018?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is fair to say that the complexity in relation to the new laws would have to be a significant factor in the need for the Electoral Commissioner, even before Mr Sherry came on board, to prepare for the new laws in relation to funding and disclosure, without question. This was a major area of law reform.

Whilst the opposition of the day, now the government, had been supportive of the legislation, you would recall, member for Kaurna, the concerns raised about introducing a new funding and disclosure system that was a completely new model from what had been applied at the national level. People were familiar with that, knew how to apply it and were used to it, but your previous government took the view that they were going to have this new, unique model—the Rau model.

Mr PICTON: So the staff were all for the funding and disclosure regime, not for polling booths.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For these significant areas of new law, without precedent in the rest of the country, there is understandably a significant body of work to be able to inform themselves how it is going to operate and how they might advise the stakeholder political parties and/or members of the public of their rights and responsibilities. I do not doubt for one minute that it was a legacy left to us by the former member for Enfield to have to work our way through. Otherwise, I cannot assist you further.

Mr PICTON: My question is in relation to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 17, targets, and the APY elections. What is the process for reviewing the APY electorates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have a regular review of how that operates. I only recently learned myself of a new electronic voting process, which I think was used for the first time at the last state election. I will invite the commissioner to inform the committee how that review operates, but I understand that the new system was successful. He will tell you if there were any glitches.

Mr SHERRY: The next APY Executive Board elections are in 2020. Prior to that, there is a review of the electorates within the APY. That process will commence later this year. The Deputy Electoral Commissioner was present for the previous review of those electorates and could probably provide some more technical details if you require.

Mr PICTON: Do you envisage that there will be much change to the electorates in those reviews?

Mr SHERRY: We have not started the process, so it is inappropriate to comment on that possible outcome.

Mr PICTON: What criteria will be used to determine whether and how the electorates should change?

Mr SHERRY: Again, the process has not started, so it is not appropriate to answer that at this point.

Mr PICTON: Will an information campaign be run on the APY lands and when will that commence?

Mr SHERRY: The answer is yes. As to when it will commence, we have not set that down as yet.

Mr PICTON: Will it be similar to previous years? Will there be an enrolment phase and a voting information phase?

Mr SHERRY: Yes.

Mr PICTON: How much money has been budgeted for that information campaign?

Mr SHERRY: We have a total budget of $130,000 to incorporate the review of the boundaries as well as the conduct of the APY Executive Board elections. From that, the communications component will be taken.

Mr PICTON: Chair, you will be delighted that I am going to ask a State Records question. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Before you go ahead, I will ask Mr Froude to come forward.

The CHAIR: I will allow it. I will make sure you have time for that question, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Excellent, thank you. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43, the objective for State Records states that they are to provide advice on records and information management. Has State Records conducted any training sessions with ministers' offices in regard to their obligations under the legislation? Which offices were provided with sessions or information, and did ministers attend those sessions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will open by saying that I will ask Mr Froude to indicate whether his office had any involvement in the process. To the best of my knowledge, under this government ministers have not attended any instruction or advice in relation to such matters. I cannot account for ministers of the previous government who overlap this time period of application because, of course, this was a guideline that was established under the previous government. As to what their process was, I cannot assist you, but in relation to any agency representatives who may or may not have received any advice about what they were to send on to records for Mr Froude to process and record, I will ask him to provide any further information that he can.

Mr FROUDE: Thank you, Attorney. My staff have provided ad hoc advice to ministerial officers but no formal training sessions.

Mr PICTON: Is State Records aware of any staff or ministers using private emails for government business?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, but I can take on notice whether there is any aspect of that which can be helpful to the committee. I know that last year there was an occasion when one of the ministerial officers had received information, I think, on a private email and transferred that information for the purposes of being part of the records of the ministerial office.

Probably the challenge for members in this area is that, when there is the receipt of information, whether it is on a private email or whether it is on a telephone as an SMS message, if it is government business obviously it needs to comply with the records act no matter what the forum or medium upon which it was received, electronic or courier pigeon. If it is government business, that is what we try to ensure is kept and recorded for the purposes of the records act.

Mr PICTON: What was the nature of that email that was received by the minister on their private email address and was there any counselling—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it was something to do with the Department for Health.

Mr PICTON: —given to that minister in terms of how best to process state records?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I recall, not by me. I just recall it being an issue publicly raised at the time.

Mr PICTON: Is it something that State Records provided you with advice on?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No not that I recall.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, we have reached the allotted time—gone past it, in fact. Therefore, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Electoral Commission of South Australia and the portfolio of State Records to be completed.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr J. Chapman, Small Business Commissioner.

Mr P. Bertram, Director Compliance and Enforcement Operations, Consumer and Business Services.

Ms C. Knight Senior Manager, Reform Regulatory Services, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr S. Bedford, Manager Strategy and Performance, Consumer and Business Services.

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: The next portfolio to be examined is that of Consumer and Business Services and the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. The Attorney-General is appearing. I declare the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department open for examination. Once your advisers are settled, Attorney, I will ask you to introduce them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Andrew Swanson to my far left is coming and placing his papers. To my immediate left is the commissioner, Dini Soulio, and we have the return of Caroline Mealor, my chief executive. I do not have any other opening statement. I think the Commissioner for Small Business, whom I have recently inherited, is also present, so I am happy to start with Commissioner Soulio's area of responsibility for Consumer and Business Services but indicate that Mr Chapman is here ready to deal with small business matters the committee might want to ask about.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. I invite questions. The member for Cheltenham.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 19, being the objectives. I ask you to clarify some public statements you made in September 2018. You stated publicly that you would be seeking advice from a task force of government agencies on the adequacy of other laws that protect workers from exploitation outside the Labour Hire Licensing Act. Would you advise what this advice concluded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am trying to find page 19.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order already from the member for Heysen—

Mr SZAKACS: Page 29.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Page 29? Sorry.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, I am going to have to apologise because I missed most of that question. I might ask you to pull your microphone closer. I know I did a lot of tractor hours in a past life, but if you could speak into the microphone that would be better. Could you repeat the question while the Attorney is finding the page, please.

Mr SZAKACS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 29, being the objectives, dot point 1 and dot point 2. I ask the Attorney to clarify and provide some further information to estimates regarding public statements she made in September 2018. They were that she would be seeking advice from a task force of government agencies on the adequacy of the other laws outside labour hire licensing that may protect workers from exploitation. Could you please advise what that advice concluded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The stakeholders had been consulted. There was only one issue of concern raised and that related to the ability to share data, but there had been an indication that the current laws were adequate.

Mr SZAKACS: I beg your pardon, can you please repeat that last sentence? I am sorry, but I could not hear you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They indicated that the current laws were adequate.

Mr SZAKACS: Being the Labour Hire Licensing Act was adequate, or—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, being the individual laws, as you are aware.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, who or what agency did this advice come from?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The membership of the task force included representatives from Consumer and Business Services, ReturnToWorkSA, SafeWork SA, RevenueSA and the Small Business Commissioner.

Mr SZAKACS: Who convened that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the convenor was Mr Dini Soulio, who is the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services.

Mr SZAKACS: Did the commissioner also chair or facilitate the meetings of that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Mr SZAKACS: Did the advice that you received from Mr Soulio as chair or convenor of that task force inform your decision to seek to repeal the labour hire act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not specifically because the government had determined and made a statement during the course of the debates on the labour hire bill, as it then was, that there were adequate protections for the ill sought to be cured in this bill and that therefore it was not necessary to have such a law.

Furthermore, as you may not be aware—because as member for Cheltenham you were not here in the parliament at the time but were no doubt following an interest in the matter—I would inform you that there had been a call for a national law to strengthen the protections on a uniform basis across the country. That had been the desired outcome that had been presented. I think it is fair to say that some states—Queensland and Victoria in particular, as I recall—had acted to introduce labour hire laws, followed by this state back in 2016-17, to advance that as a state initiative rather than wait for any federal advance.

Nevertheless, what has happened since then is that the federal government of the day undertook a review. That review recommended that there be labour hire law within a confined area—I think four principal areas of workforce. Subsequently, this year the government of the day announced in its budget nearly $20 million or thereabouts to advance a national law. My recollection is that at the same time the then leader of the opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, indicated that he would support having a national scheme and that if he were elected to office he would also advance that.

For a lot of reasons, that was at least bringing together an indication by both major parties at the national level that they would advance a national law and all the more reason, we consider, that we should progress with repealing this legislation. Nevertheless, that will be a matter for the parliament when the parliament resumes in September. I do not doubt that we will all be watching with interest what happens at the national level in the meantime.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I would like to go back to an answer you provided to my previous question regarding advice and adequacy in respect of other laws outside labour hire licensing. Did the advice you received indicate specifically which laws were adequate or that broadly speaking the laws outside the Labour Hire Licensing Act were sufficient?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was just informed broadly speaking. There are times when I have been provided with a list of different laws that do apply. I will ask the commissioner if he would like to add anything to that as to the areas of law that were purporting to adequately provide for the protections of those who are vulnerable in this area.

Mr SOULIO: Each of the members of the task force was asked whether there were any areas of their current legislation that they thought should be amended so that they could better enforce or use their powers under their specific laws, as we were looking at the legislation generally. The answer we received was that the members of the task force did not indicate that there were any areas of the legislation they administered that needed to be amended. They did raise some questions around their ability to share data, which is the only thing we have looked at.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, did the advice that you received from your task force in respect of the laws outside labour hire licensing provide advice as to what body of law allowed and provided for the sharing of SAPOL criminal intelligence to remove the right of a dodgy provider to operate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not recall receiving specific advice on that, but I will inquire of the commissioner and he might be able to assist.

Mr SOULIO: No, no information was provided by SA Police.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, did the advice that you received from Mr Soulio or other members of your task force identify which of these other laws you speak of mandated a labour hire operator to report their wage and superannuation compliance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I do not recall that. I am mindful that obviously a failure to provide someone with their wage entitlement and/or superannuation obligations by an employer, of course, has some remedy in the South Australian Employment Tribunal, which is a tribunal under my area of responsibility to populate—that is, to appoint the judges. In that regard, obviously we have both laws and a tribunal specialised for the purposes of enforcing people's rights in relation to their entitlements for salary, benefits, superannuation and the like.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, my question specifically was: what advice did you receive about the existing law and the positive obligations that that would impose upon an employer to positively report their wage and superannuation compliance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not recall receiving any advice on that. I will check with the commissioner whether there was anything in the task force that was raised as a concern and/or reported on.

Mr SOULIO: No. Again, we asked whether there was any requirement for strengthening of laws and the answer was no. As to whether specific reporting requirements for RevenueSA or ReturnToWork are considered not strong enough, that was not raised as part of that consultation, as far as I can recall.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, did you receive any advice from your task force in respect of or pertaining to the capacity for any of those agencies to apply a fit and proper test in respect of the granting of a licence for a labour hire operator to operate or undertake business in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I do not recall that being in relation to the task force. From memory, it was a subject raised in the federal government's review—not necessarily an incapacity to do it but who should do it and things of that nature. I do not recall anything in the state task force, but again the commissioner was chairing those meetings and so perhaps he could assist.

Mr SOULIO: I am just trying to follow. Where they have to provide a licence—is that the nature of your question? Are those agencies required to license a labour hire operator? At the moment, labour hire licensing as such would only sit with me; they do not provide a labour hire licensing function.

Mr SZAKACS: My question goes to the heart of the advice the Attorney received. The Attorney provided a response to this committee just a moment ago that the advice came that the existing laws were sufficient. My question relates to the provision of a labour hire act which allows for a fit and proper test to be applied. Where does that exist in other law, and did you receive advice on that from your task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is at cross purposes or perhaps I had not explained it clearly enough. The stakeholders were suggesting that the laws under which they operate away from the labour hire act provided adequate protections in relation to the areas for which they were responsible and for which they made that. The issue of having a fit and proper person test for the purposes of the labour hire act is something under Mr Soulio's responsibility. Therefore, they did not suggest that there was another law which currently makes provision for that process.

They were simply saying the laws under which they currently operate outside of a process of registration, which is really what the labour hire act is all about, requires people to go through a process, pay a fee and be assessed for the purposes of being eligible to be registered and, if you are not registered, then you face severe fines if you purport to operate as a labour hire company. That is the gist of it. In the stakeholders' round table, they were saying as such, that they saw adequate protections under the existing law, that is, away from the labour hire act.

Mr SZAKACS: And that is the line of my questioning, Attorney. It is to establish the nature of that advice and particularly on which parts of the law the task force advised you and how the workers of the state can—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not on that because they were telling us a different story. They were telling us that they did not need to have that and that they were happy with the laws they had.

Mr SZAKACS: I move on to some statements you made in November 2018 in respect of the task force, where you note:

To more effectively tackle the issue, the taskforce will now focus on protecting vulnerable workers by sharing data that would more effectively identify, and potentially prosecute, those unscrupulous operators…

Attorney, does the task force still meet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will make that inquiry of the commissioner. Yes, it meets every six weeks or so.

Mr SZAKACS: Does the commissioner still convene and chair that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, can you advise which government agencies continue to participate in that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The same.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, are you aware that in Estimates Committee B last week ReturnToWorkSA Chief Executive, Mr Cordiner, advised that ReturnToWorkSA does not participate in the task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He may not have known, but they do.

Mr SZAKACS: So your advice is that ReturnToWorkSA does participate in that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr SZAKACS: How does that task force periodically report to you? You mentioned that it meets every six weeks. Is there periodic reporting on the success or otherwise of the stated goals or aims of that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not directly from them. I do, however, meet with the commissioner on a monthly basis and, in addition to that, on an as-required basis, when he reports to me on all current matters within his portfolio, which is pretty extensive, really.

Mr SZAKACS: Has any of the work undertaken by this task force led to charges being laid or prosecutions being successful against any labour hire operators?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. Just to be clear, this is not some investigative body; this is a task force upon which to give advice.

Mr SZAKACS: To be fair, your public statement says that it would 'effectively identify, and potentially prosecute'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating to you—and if I could just finish, please—that it has a principal role obviously in relation to considering the adequacy and effectiveness of the legal structures that it has and to provide advice but, in fairness, as part of being more effective, to meet from time to time and identify if there are particular companies that are showing up on each of their books.

I think the theory that fits with this is similar to agencies that work together to identify perhaps families that are vulnerable. It might be police and welfare agencies and the like meeting and, similarly, the agencies that have a role in this case of protection of workers and provision of their recovery for work, safe workplaces, obviously taxation in the sense of compliance, paying the fees and obligations that they are there to meet, including the PAYG wage taxation now for employees.

The Small Business Commissioner in his mediation or advisory work may come across the companies that are exhibiting some problems. When I say companies, I am talking about this generally as perhaps employers who for whatever reason are showing up as having some deficiency. There may be some indicia as to a company that, if it is not compliant in one area, may not be compliant in another. Getting into financial difficulty starts to show up when people do not pay all the payments they should, do not provide adequate and safe procedures, do not provide enough supervision for safety in the workplace. All these sorts of things can sometimes, as an aggregate, show up someone who may be exhibiting some minor breach or failing but not necessarily enough for a prosecution.

But once they have been identified, and the committee members can go off and perhaps re-examine further in their own areas of responsibility whether the company has shown up in that way, they then can discuss whether there is any process for prosecution. But, as you might appreciate, the prosecution of these matters is not by the task force. It is by the individual areas of inspectorate and responsibility that these agencies have, and that may be Mr Soulio, as the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services; it may be SafeWork SA, etc.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, has the commissioner advised you of any of those red flags or indicia, which you note, giving cause for any agency to take action or—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To prosecute, you mean?

Mr SZAKACS: No. You have noted that there have been no prosecutions, but I am interested in whether there have been any red flags or indicia that have given cause for any other types of actions or intervention from the agencies.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You mean to suggest that there might be some inspection or visit, to clarify?

Mr SZAKACS: Short of prosecution.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Something short of prosecution. I will make some inquiry on that. Can I just say that in the time frame that this task force has been meeting, I am not necessarily suggesting that there have been no prosecutions at all in relation to any of these areas. Each of these agencies may well have taken up action in their area of responsibility in that time.

To the best of our knowledge, there has not been a prosecution by a body within this task force as a result of the task force itself meeting and exchanging information. That is correct. I am also advised that there are other agencies—I have not said who they are, but I think you can probably imagine who they might be—conducting investigations from which prosecutions might result. But in relation to your secondary question, regarding something less than a prosecution as a result of red flags or indicia that show up, I will ask the commissioner if there is anything he can add to that.

Mr SOULIO: I have not had any complaints or concerns raised in relation to individual operators. There are obviously members of that task force who are conducting investigations in relation to activities within this space that would be inappropriate to comment on. One of the ideas of the task force is to bring together those agencies to compare notes where we can, from a data sharing point of view, to determine who should be a lead agency, for example, if there is information that is appropriate to share where the conduct may overlap with multiple agencies. So there is some work that is yet to be done in relation to that but it has not come to my attention regarding specific operators of concern as a complaint to my office.

Ms BEDFORD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 29 under dot point 3:

…provide dispute resolution services for consumers and traders that support a fair, safe, and equitable marketplace in South Australia

What help is available for small business subcontractors when entering into contractual terms at the outset of their venture?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is an important question, but it is actually the responsibility of the Small Business Commissioner, who is sitting behind me.

Ms BEDFORD: I have some questions about petrol pricing, ticket scalping and other things, so perhaps we will wait before we move people around, or I can wait until the end of the session.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, if I can help here, ask your Consumer and Business Services question first.

Ms BEDFORD: On petrol pricing, has any thought been given to establishing a price watch system similar to that in Western Australia to provide some sort of security and certainty for consumers here in South Australia around petrol?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is fair to say that we have just about considered every state. In short, obviously we made an election commitment to investigate the feasibility of introducing a mandatory fuel price disclosure, and pretty much we have been around the country. We undertook a review of the different schemes introduced in Western Australia, as you have mentioned, as well as New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory, to ascertain what would be appropriate to implement a similar scheme here.

In particular, we gave consideration to the Northern Territory's MyFuel scheme, which was introduced in November 2017, and the Queensland model that was being proposed following the Queensland government's announcement of 1 May last year. After we came into government, they then started this trial, which is to be over a period of two years and will conclude in November 2020. Similar to the New South Wales scheme, the NT MyFuel scheme requires the collection and publication of all service station fuel prices, and the data that is collected is recorded and managed internally within government.

In contrast to the schemes operating in New South Wales, the NT and Western Australia, the scheme in Queensland is managed by a third party that has developed the platform for the collection of data. CBS undertook consultation with these jurisdictions to gauge the nature of the costs involved in developing the required IT infrastructure and to better understand some of the operational issues, resource requirements and potential business impacts associated with the implementation. CBS also met with Informed Sources on a number of occasions to discuss fuel price transparency in a broad context on the basis that it would not reduce fuel prices prior to being awarded the contract to manage the Queensland scheme at significant cost to government.

There is quite a lot of other information here, but I think it is fair to say that we are keen on looking at and, if possible, implementing a scheme if it reduces the cost-of-living pressures on South Australians, if it works and if it is cost effective in that space. It seems that, whilst we have looked at a number of other jurisdictions, including the Western Australian model, the best so far is this trial that is happening in Queensland.

You might recall I reported to the parliament that one of the concerns in relation to the project that was introduced some time ago now in New South Wales, of which there was a review then done in Victoria, was that it pushed the prices of fuel up. The last thing we want is to have a scheme that has that negative effect. It is a work in progress. Yes, we have considered that model in Western Australia, and at this stage we have indicated that we will await the review in Queensland.

Ms BEDFORD: Do other states experience the 40¢ jumps that we do?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The increased price of petrol is one issue that is always of concern and, where it happens, really the only remedy at present is for the person who is adversely affected or who identifies this to report it to the ACCC, which is the body responsible for dealing with that type of price management.

Ms BEDFORD: So other states do not have a 40¢ jump?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure they do, but I do not have the detail of it. I am just saying that the regulatory body to deal with that is the ACCC.

Ms BEDFORD: I have a question about your implementation of ticket scalping measures. Have the ticket scalping prevention measures been successful?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question. There is quite a bit of information here. I am happy to share it with the committee.

Ms BEDFORD: It would just be nice to know if we have actually—

Mr PICTON: Caught anyone.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, prosecuted anybody. The answer is probably no.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let me identify the stats, if that is what you are really looking for.

Ms BEDFORD: It is a big problem.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thirty-three complaints have been received from members of the public and 16 are currently being assessed. At this stage, there have been no prosecutions for breaches of the act; however, complaints will continue to be assessed as they come in. While it is still early days in terms of assessing the legislative effectiveness, I note that consumers are using these laws. The act requires the legislation to be reviewed within two years, so that is late next year.

I would mention that, as of 18 July 2019, 20 notices have been issued by CBS for the removal of ads selling tickets to events such as Metallica, Hugh Jackman, The Showdown and Michael McIntyre. In addition to cracking down on ticket scalping, the government also took action to protect consumers by legislating a minimum validity period for gift cards. I hope that is of assistance. The commissioner next to me here has obviously been vigilant in this space, issuing notices and dealing with complaints, but to date there have not been any prosecutions.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, you have a supplementary question—

Ms BEDFORD: I do indeed.

The CHAIR: —and then I will go back to the member for Cheltenham.

Ms BEDFORD: How does that compare with other states? It is the same as petrol in a very roundabout sort of way. We all have the same problems. Is our rate of looking at ticket scalping as effective as in other states? What are we seeing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could ask the commissioner. The commissioner is not indicating that he has familiarity with that. It is pretty new, let's face it, but I suppose it is something he could raise and I could ask him to raise at his next meeting of CBS. We are meeting at the end of August. Ministers are meeting and of course the commissioners and/or deputy secretaries, or whatever they are called. Anyway, ours is a commissioner, and there were—

Ms BEDFORD: So that is something else we could take a lead in. Our state could take a lead in that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are meeting at the end of the month and I am happy to take that up at that meeting to see whether there has been any success. Let me just say in relation to ticket scalping that I would not call it the same as fuel. I think we are dealing with a different phenomenon here.

Ms BEDFORD: I did not mean exactly the same as fuel, but a system of some kind.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In this instance, I suppose we are trying to protect the potential event attendee from unfair exploitation of their desire to go to an event and from being seduced into paying a price, an extorted amount, that is just unreasonable by the second-hand purchase. There have been various ways of trying to deal with this—for example, by restricting the number of tickets one entity can buy, most of which is done online these days. Importantly, this is a law that says that, over this amount, you cannot onsell this ticket. Unfortunately, people who are desperate to go to a special football game or a particular concert or an important event for them can be vulnerable to pay those funds.

Ms BEDFORD: So we need some undercover ticket buyers, don't we?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, if that is a job that the member for Florey is looking at in the future, I will bear that in mind.

Ms BEDFORD: You are seeing me off already?

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, you have a question that we will come to later for the Small Business Commissioner.

Ms BEDFORD: I have another one about residential villages, but I will get to that in a minute.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I have a follow-up and a clarification in respect of your previous answer around fuel watch. Is this committee to take from your answer, which was particularly comprehensive, that you will not be pursuing an introduction of fuel watch monitoring?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps you were not listening. I will try to be brief in my follow-up on this. We made a commitment to investigate what options were available. If it turns out that, metered down, the Queensland option is the best so far, that may have promise in this regard—we do not want to have a situation as is purported to occur in New South Wales, where prices go up as a result of having this type of real-time product to supervise the price of fuel—and make that available to the consumer so that they can make wise choices.

Obviously, we are hopeful that if that is the case it may be something that we can immediately progress. It does not conclude as a trial until November next year, and in light of the other models having different areas of weakness, I suppose, we are still hopeful that Queensland might have the answer. If it does, then that is something we can pursue down the track.

Mr SZAKACS: Sir, I have more questions in relation to CBS. Would you like me to continue?

The CHAIR: Yes, we can move to that because I think the member for Florey has a question.

Ms BEDFORD: One thing I want to know before we—

Mr SZAKACS: No, CBS. The current advisers are with the Attorney.

The CHAIR: Okay, you are still going. Yes, that is fine.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, can I take you to some questions in respect of the exemptions gazetted on 6 June 2019 regarding the Labour Hire Licensing Act. In particular, I would like to ask you a couple of questions in regard to the exemption for providers where the provision of labour hire services is 'not a core function of the business'. Would you please provide advice on how the 'core function' of a business will be assessed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner will have the conduct of that application, so I will invite him to advise the committee as to the application of that.

Mr SOULIO: Thank you, Attorney. This arose due to a number of concerns that were raised by industry around the fact that, for example, a medical practice loans a doctor to another medical practice to deal with a particular increase in work. Their core function is a medical practice; it is not a labour hire firm. The idea behind that exemption is that the core function is labour hire rather than an ad hoc one-off provision of labour.

The concern we were receiving was, 'I'm not a labour hire firm. This is not the intention in relation to this, but from time to time I will provide an electrician from my business to BHP,' or, 'I'll provide a doctor to another service to assist them. Am I caught by this?' and that is the idea behind the exemption. If it is identified that there are gaps or loopholes in that, we can certainly address that through a change to the exemptions or a change to the act. It needs to be fairly fluid.

What we are finding is that the definition created previously probably caught some that we did not anticipate when it was developed, and we are now trying to tidy that up a little bit as we go through this process. It is fluid enough that where outliers arise I think we will deal with it as we need to.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I take it that you or Mr Soulio would have taken advice in respect of these exemptions that were gazetted. Mr Soulio's answer goes to a very specific case of a medical practice, but there are potentially countless examples where Mr Soulio will need to assess the balance by which a business undertakes labour hire services or other business. Based upon the advice that we have seen in previous evidence to parliament or the committee on this stage, dodgy labour hire companies will go to no end to structure their businesses to get around the best part of regulation or law. Will you advise whether the 'core business', as quoted in the exemption, may go to the assessment of the total quanta of payroll?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner may inquire as to that being a feature upon which they might make the assessment of whether it is a core business. That is one factor that could be considered, namely, the percentage of payroll. It might be, say, more than 10 per cent that relates to people who are employed for the purposes of making them available to other agencies, but there could be a number of other features as well. I will quickly give you the exemptions in the Government Gazette that exclude providers where the provision of workers is not a core function of their business. I hope this will be helpful.

Mr SZAKACS: Point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Where it is not a core function of their business—

The CHAIR: Attorney, before you go on, there is a point of order.

Mr SZAKACS: The Attorney is kindly repeating my question and quoting from the provision on which I am seeking some further advice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I was going to give you some other exemptions.

Mr SZAKACS: My question specifically related to the way in which the commissioner will assess what is core business, not the other three or four dot points of the gazetted exemptions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is important from the point of view of identifying—

The CHAIR: The Attorney can answer that question and give it some context, absolutely.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you. This is important from the point of view of assessing the percentage of payroll of the subject company (you might say 'dodgy provider') of the inquiry. The other exemptions relate to businesses that provide:

workers to another business within the same group of companies, for example, a parent company supplying workers to a subsidiary company;

workers to work in another business where both businesses are part of the same franchise;

workers to work in other businesses that are not part of a franchise but are collectively operating using the same banner, branding or trade name; and

a worker to another business where the provider is a body corporate with no more than two directors and the worker is a director.

It may be that in relation to the latter one the question of percentage of payroll would still be a factor, but it seems here that it relates to a small operation, as distinct from the percentage of the payroll. That gives you an example of where it probably will not be effective. When the commissioner is looking at these matters, I think that percentage of payroll would still be a factor that anyone would consider.

Mr SZAKACS: I appreciate that the Attorney has hypothesised about what may be taken into account. I am interested in whether you can today or on notice provide some further information to this committee about what the commissioner will be considering in assessing core business.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner is happy to add to that.

Mr SOULIO: I can provide a little bit of context. The exemption relates to the provision of workers being a core function of the business, not the core function. That is on purpose so that we can assess if one of the arms or a core function of that business is the provision of labour hire. I regulate many industries—builders, real estate agents, car dealers, anyone. There was some talk about regulating brothels.

Where we deal with people who are trying to get around the laws, obviously we have a compliance function to try to assess those. Where there are entities who are trying to circumvent the laws, we will assess that by using structures to deal with it. Certainly, where a function is providing labour hire and that is identified as a core function, then either they get licensed or, if they do not, we will deal with them for unlicensed work.

Mr SZAKACS: The commissioner has responded to my question; thank you for that. Attorney, how does the portion of work that a business undertakes in respect of core or non-core functions in providing labour hire services have anything to do with the objects of the act and what they seek to achieve?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The objects of what act?

Mr SZAKACS: The Labour Hire Licensing Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The objects of the act, I think, are fairly clear in wanting to set up a licensing scheme to provide an obligation to be licensed if you are providing labour hire with a threat of deregistration and penalty if you do not.

Whilst I think that everyone in this committee, and indeed this parliament, wants to ensure that we have a legal structure, whether it is in a labour hire act or anything else, that has the effect of dealing with unscrupulous providers—in this case, of labour hire. In that regard, that is the important thing to achieve.

The commissioner has explained, however, that in the course of someone's business, such as the medical practice example he gave, the fact that one medical practice provides a doctor to someone else is clearly not intended to be caught by the purpose and objective of this legislation. It is not our law that this government endorses. We do understand the reasons for it. We think that as a government this is a law that is adequately covered in other ways. Nevertheless, the commissioner has made clear—

Mr SZAKACS: Cherrypicking objectives of the act.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Cheltenham! The Attorney is answering.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that he is implementing the assessment for the purposes of the application of the act. He is doing that, and in doing that he has identified a number of exemptions, which he is satisfied are clearly outside the objects of the act and should not be incorporated.

I do not think that even the member for Cheltenham would be suggesting that the medical practice in that circumstance, which has loaned a doctor to somebody down the road who desperately needs somebody to go and do the work for three months, should be caught by this. I would be absolutely astounded—

Mr SZAKACS: I suspect the objectives do not care what size the business is and what—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Cheltenham, you have asked your question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would be absolutely astounded if the member for Cheltenham is genuinely suggesting that, but in any event—

Mr SZAKACS: Do you have another example apart from the one doctor—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr SZAKACS: —because you are relying on that one.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have just read out four different examples—

Mr SZAKACS: No, you read out the four other exemptions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —where the commissioner considers where a worker is not a core business of their operation.

The CHAIR: I just remind the committee that we also have open the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. I am happy to take questions on that or not, either way.

Mr PICTON: I have a few other CBS questions, and then we will swap at the end.

The CHAIR: We have 13 minutes. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 30 and the introduction of revised liquor licensing fees. The 2018-19 budget foreshadowed that revised liquor licensing fees would raise $3.2 million per annum. Is that figure still accurate, and when does the new licensing regime come into force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The $3.2 million is accurate, and it is to commence 1 November this year for new licensees and 1 July 2020 for the existing.

Mr PICTON: Have any exemptions to the new fee structure been sought and, if so, have they been granted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the commissioner to indicate whether there have been any granted

Mr SOULIO: There have been no exemptions to fees granted at this stage.

Mr PICTON: Have any been sought?

Mr SOULIO: Not an exemption to the fees. There have been some concerns raised in relation to individual licence categories or individual businesses that are impacted, and we are looking at those on the basis of whether there are impacts that we need to consider—exemptions or changes—but at this stage that has not been addressed.

Mr PICTON: Why would some people get an exemption from the regime and others would not?

Mr SOULIO: I am not saying they will. I am saying that they have indicated that and we are having a look at it. As we have gone through, this there have been some outliers. As an example, and I do not like to name individual businesses, when the risk model was developed and when you look at trades after 5am in or near Hindley Street—we were approached because the Pancake Kitchen's fees were going to be $30,000, and they are not considered high risk.

We need to look at outliers that were not picked up in the model. We do not necessarily appreciate every business model, but that was the sort of thing we would look at—outliers as they arise in a particular model when they are developed. At this stage, there are no other exemptions. They did not get an exemption, but there are no other exemptions at this point.

Mr PICTON: Maybe high risk for cholesterol. The 2018-19 budget also foreshadowed $200,000 per annum from 2019-20 to be provided for a harm minimisation fund. Has that fund been established and what programs will be funded through the fund?

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

Mr SOULIO: That has not been established as yet. We are working through what that would look like and how it can be used to address harm. Part of the recommendations from the Anderson report were that a fund be established for harm minimisation. We have been focusing on getting the new legislation implemented and in place by November, which we are working towards at the moment, and then we will turn our minds to the use of that fund during the 2019-20 financial year. Looking at whether there is an education campaign that would be necessary to address some of the issues in relation to harm and whether that is a grant system are still things that we are working through at the moment.

Mr PICTON: Who will approve the funding out of that and what will the process be?

Mr SOULIO: Yes, all of those things will be worked through as we come up with the final—

Mr PICTON: You do not know?

Mr SOULIO: No, not yet.

Mr PICTON: I have a question in relation to Budget Paper 5, page 15, Consumer and Business Services, regulatory fees. This measure raises an additional $1.6 million per annum in fees, including for real estate agents, tradies, security licences, and births, deaths and marriages certificates. Can you outline what the rationale was for increasing those fees by 5 per cent, well above the inflation rate of 1.1 per cent?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think, as per the publication of the Treasurer at the time of the budget, the anticipated significant shortfall in revenue from GST that is forecast for the forthcoming financial year and the need to provide some revenue source to offset that foreshadowed shortfall. Accordingly, some of that is to be met, of course, from this 5 per cent measure.

Mr PICTON: So this was not a proposal from CBS or the Attorney-General's Department: this was a proposal from Treasury?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From the point of view of actually providing one of the factors to be taken into account with the shortfall.

Mr PICTON: Have there been any complaints from industry bodies about the fee increases?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not received them. I will inquire in a moment whether the commissioner has. Notwithstanding complaints that I saw published mainly from your party, member for Kaurna, I have not had anybody—any plumbers or any of these people—ring me or email me to say, 'Listen, I'm going to go broke because I can't afford the registration fee.'

Mr PICTON: Are you happy to talk to industry bodies that have concerns about this measure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am happy to speak to any of the industry bodies in relation to any of the proposals that are outlined in our budgets, but I will inquire whether there is any information from the CBS and whether they have received any complaints or people coming in with their tools of trade to say that they are desperate and going broke.

Mr SOULIO: We have not had any notable increase in concerns about fees being increased. People are able to seek extensions if they wish to, but it has not been somewhere we have had a flood of complaints in relation to the new fees at this stage.

Ms BEDFORD: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 29 again, I am looking at the first dot point under highlights, where it talks about implementing licensing requirements for real estate property managers. Could you explain the difference between that and the problem that arose at residential retirement villages around the use of the common rooms, having happy hours and so forth?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know that that has anything to do with the second issue you have raised—

Ms BEDFORD: No, I am asking whether you can explain the difference. What does 'licensing requirements for real estate property managers' actually mean?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to ask the commissioner to outline that, but in relation to your issue of whether a retirement village happy hour is caught or whether they have some capacity to be able to operate—and by operate, I mean have alcohol available to residents over the age of 18 years for a small fee; that is, it is not free—some local residents clubs within these residential facilities have operated these and sought some assurance that they are able to continue to provide this service as a happy hour. I think that has been satisfactorily resolved.

Ms BEDFORD: It actually has not. That is why I am asking—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner is going to tell you how that can be attended to.

Mr SOULIO: Can I clarify? You raise the issue of the property managers' licensing but the question relates to the liquor licence.

Ms BEDFORD: What is the difference, yes.

Mr SOULIO: If retirement villages are uncertain about their obligations, I am happy to assist in relation to that, but the situation is that they do not require a licence to serve alcohol in their venues. They need to make sure that they are served by people who are over 18 and, not surprisingly, that liquor is only consumed by people over 18, but there is no requirement to hold a licence.

Ms BEDFORD: Does the commissioner's office have an interest in the correct application of the use of maintenance fees in these villages as well, or is that somebody else's problem?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is for the fees in relation to retirement villages?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes. I still have real issues in my area.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That sits with the Office for Ageing Well, but if they want to have a drink at 5 o'clock the commissioner here is responsible for that and he is saying that they do not need a licence. Just for the purposes of Hansard, this has nothing to do with the property managers issue that you have raised. I do not take any issue with it. I just make the point that they are completely unrelated.

Ms BEDFORD: I still do not understand what the real estate property managers stuff is, but we will get to that later. We are running out of time.

The CHAIR: Are there any questions for the Small Business Commissioner? He is here; he is coming to the table. Member for Florey, did you want to go first?

Ms BEDFORD: The member for Kaurna can go first. My issue is longstanding. It is not like it is new.

Mr PICTON: Referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 48, why is the Small Business Commissioner now reporting to the Attorney-General instead of to the minister who supposedly has responsibility for small business, minister Pisoni?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member might recall, it is a matter for government to make a determination on who will be responsible for each unit within government, and the government have determined that the office will transfer to the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr PICTON: Yes, but why?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That has occurred. In addition to that, he has retained a role in respect of advice on small business and reports to minister Pisoni.

Mr PICTON: Why is he now reporting to you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is fair to say that the Attorney-General's Department has most of the integrity bodies, other than what might be dedicated, for example, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, for which we are responsible. The Small Business Commissioner has a role in relation to mediation and enforcement, if I can put it as generally as that. I do not mean to diminish his role. It is quite significant in areas in relation to building contractual arrangements, security of payments type work; farm mediation, debt mediation; and the retail and commercial leases area, to name his three areas of principal responsibility that is in the nature of a commission for the purposes of enforcement, which is consistent with other areas in the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr PICTON: Was it a proposal from the Small Business Commissioner himself to move between minister Pisoni and yourself?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure whether he was consulted at the time. I am just the beneficiary of the transfer.

Mr PICTON: So it was not your idea either?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I simply make the point that, as a member of cabinet, obviously I contribute to decisions of this nature. The role of the Small Business Commissioner, which I am sure would be well known to the member, is a commission to undertake both mediation and an enforcement role in relation to those areas of discrete compliance.

Whilst in some ways it is a similar role to the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, which has a responsibility, really, for the rest, that role most neatly fits with my office. However, the commissioner also has an advocacy role for small business as part of his charter under the legislation. As we in our government have a small business minister, it is appropriate that in policy development he receives advice from the Small Business Commissioner in that regard and continues to meet with him.

Mr PICTON: How many complaints has the Small Business Commissioner received from small businesses over the past 12 months and have they all led to dispute resolution cases being opened?

The CHAIR: Last question, member for Kaurna.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I take that on notice because there are several different areas about which he receives material and it will take quite a long time to give you the answer, but I am happy to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments to be completed.

At 17:15 the house adjourned until Tuesday 30 July 2019 at 09:00.