Attorney-General's Department, $182,398,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $72,300,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Chapman, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr F. Stroud, Director, Regulation and Advice, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr S. Bedford, Manager, Finance, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr J. Chapman, Small Business Commissioner.

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

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: The portfolio open for examination now is Consumer and Business Services and the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I advise members that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination. Attorney, you may wish to make a statement and introduce your advisers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I advise that with me today are the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, Mr Dini Soulio, to my left; Mr John Chapman, the Small Business Commissioner, who is seated behind me; Mr Fraser Stroud, the Director, Regulation and Advice; Sean Bedford, Manager, Finance for CBS; and Mr Andrew Swanson, who is the Chief Financial Officer for the AGD, who has previously been part of the committee and who is also the man in charge of the money for the Attorney-General's Department.

Can I just say that if I were to list all the great things that these divisions in Consumer and Business Services and small business have undertaken during this shocker of a year with COVID-19, I would use the whole time. I do not want to do that; obviously, I want to make it available for the committee to ask questions, but please just take how grateful the government is for the work that has been undertaken.

Reflected in this budget is specific funding and initiatives to support the implementation of new programs, including the fuel price transparency scheme, and other digital systems, together with a lot of the relief for fees during COVID, which have affected this year's budget.

With that, can I say a big thank you to these agencies. If I were to give you just one example of how difficult it is to manage a COVID situation it is that suddenly we have health risks to people of a mature age—which, of course, is not you, Chair, but other very old people—who largely populate the valuable services of justices of the peace. The consequence was the closure of the frontline office and the availability of JP services.

That meant a greater reliance on the offices of members of parliament and other services at local councils. They closed, and this became an issue we had to deal with legislatively. This is just a practical consequence of the myriad things dealt with by these agencies, and I place on the record the government's appreciation for the same.

The CHAIR: Member for Enfield, would you like to make a statement or ask a question?

Ms MICHAELS: No, other than to wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney in expressing thanks for the efforts put in by Consumer and Business Services and the Small Business Commissioner during COVID.

I will start my questions by taking the Attorney to Budget Paper 5, page 19, and the last table on the mandatory fuel price transparency scheme and the two-year trial proposed in that. You have allocated a budget of $1.2 million with only one FTE. Is that a realistic allocation of resources to ensure that the trial is run successfully for that two-year period?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will start by recognising what has been proposed. We changed the law, through the parliament, to provide for a mandatory obligation for retailers of fuel, not diesel and other provisions but unleaded fuel, and that is the legal obligation. The collecting of that material and its provision for consumer consumption—that is, is to enable them to be able to select the best, quickest, closest, cheapest fuel available—is the exercise being proposed.

I will ask the commissioner to outline the process of that but, as I have explained to the parliament a couple of times now, the time to employ that new obligation has somewhat extended because of the decision to undertake a procurement process to select somebody to collect the data. I understand that is underway and, as I have advised the parliament, my expectation is that that is going provide a decision on who is going to do this before Christmas. That is the primary party, who will then do the work to comply with the laws there.

However, we need to have a full-time equivalent person to be able to provide the monitoring and enforcement of that. As the member might recall, there is a significant fine—from my recollection, it is up to $10,000 per noncompliance—with a right to waive that by the commissioner if it is for a trivial amount. I cannot remember the exact words, but basically it is to give some discretion to the commissioner to be able to say, 'Well, this technically is 10,000 breaches by virtue of an electronic repeating circumstance,' and the commissioner may exercise some discretion as to how that is going to apply for the enforcement purposes. In relation to getting the trial started, I invite the commissioner to make a contribution to the committee.

Mr SOULIO: Thank you, Attorney, and thank you for the question. I think a summary of your question would be whether one person is enough. The model involves the allocation of a fuel aggregator who will collect all the data and make sure it is available to be published by app providers. There will then be what we are calling a validator, another entity, who will assess and use data that is available to make sure that the fuel prices being published are accurate.

Between the two of them, we will have information that comes to us, as well as complaints from the public, to say that there will potentially be people who are noncompliant. We will then use that individual as an assessment officer or investigate those complaints from a compliance point of view.

Again, as with all of these, we make an assumption about how many complaints we will have to deal with and how many issues there are. We have determined that one FTE should be enough. If that is not the case, then we will have to assess and reallocate staff, but for the moment we are hoping that one will be sufficient.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, has that budgeted allocation of one FTE been done based on an assessment of what has been used in other states using this kind of fuel check mechanism?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Queensland operates a system that is similar to the one that we as a parliament have approved here. As to the resources required, I have relied on the commissioner's advice from the calculations undertaken by his office. As the member may be aware with these processes, that then has the eye of the Treasurer's office over it to make some reassessment as to whether or not that is reliable. Of course with this agency it is always reliable. I will invite the commissioner to add anything further, but I have not picked the number; this has been on the professional advice of the commissioner's office.

Mr SOULIO: Certainly I would be more than happy to have more staff to do all the work that we have, but I have to be realistic about those requirements. We have looked at how Queensland have monitored their system and the resources they have engaged and came up with the assessment that, between the data assessment and that one FTE, we will be able to manage the work that comes through.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, I also have a question on whether you anticipate it is starting before Christmas or by Christmas. Have the contracts been signed for this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have explained it to the parliament but, in short, you might recall during the debates there was an issue raised by one of the members of parliament who I think was scathing in her assessment of one of the parties that operates in Australia and provides the contract to the Queensland Labor government. As a result, it was the commissioner's decision to ensure that absolutely no criticism could be made and that it was appropriate to have a full process of invitation to tender on this matter.

It may be that the particular agency that has the Queensland contract is competent and very capable of doing it. I do not know. I would expect there are not a lot of players in this space. There may be only a handful in Australia providing this service. In any event, it was the commissioner's view that it should be put out to full tender. That was going to take some months.

I have consistently advised the parliament that there is an expectation the process will conclude before Christmas. A person will be identified—there will be a winner, as such—and then we can get onto its implementation in the new year. Would you like to add anything else, commissioner?

Mr SOULIO: No, that is correct. We are going through the evaluation of those that have submitted for the tender process at the moment, and there will be an announcement as to who the successful tenderer is and a contract to be executed. That announcement will be before Christmas.

Ms MICHAELS: And when do you expect the actual implementation to commence?

Mr SOULIO: We are working on March. It may be a bit earlier subject to the transition of data and whether developers of current apps are accessing the data earlier, but certainly March is the go-live time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the committee, I might further add that I have been pleased to notice the very low fuel prices around metropolitan Adelaide in recent times. There could be a number of factors in relation to why that is the case, but South Australia has enjoyed a fairly overall low fuel cost relative to other states and that is great.

In the meantime, until we have the mandatory disclosure process implemented, I remind members of the committee that a number of apps are available for the identification of fuel prices across South Australia. In fact, sometimes they operate across Australia, but we have a number of them.

The weakness of those apps, if I can describe it respectfully, which this new legislation will plug, is the fact that all retailers do not necessarily contribute to the data accumulation for those apps. There are certain retailers that do not. Therefore, if you go to them—I will not name one of them, but one of them is on my phone—you will not necessarily have every retail outlet displayed on the map and identified with the price of unleaded fuel next to it because not everyone has put their data in. The new aspect of this whole model is that it will mandate every retailer to make that provision and they will be fined if they do not update any change within—

Mr SOULIO: I cannot remember the time frame.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a matter of minutes. If there is a change of price any time of the day or night, there is a time frame in which they are obliged to electronically—

Mr SOULIO: Thirty minutes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —thirty minutes—provide that and the penalty, of course, can be quite a hefty fine. The expectation is on the Productivity Commission recommendation that this will provide a saving of between $3 million and $8 million a year, potentially, but there are other services available in the meantime. Hopefully, for Easter 2021, we look like we will have the South Australian homegrown model in place.

Ms MICHAELS: I have one final question on this issue. Regarding the budget implications table that I referred you to, would you expect, Attorney, for that to be carried forward to 2022-23, given a 21 March commencement date?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would expect so. It is a two-year trial, so it depends on when we get started. As I said to the parliament during the debates, if it is successful, we would expect that it would continue. If it is not successful, I have indicated to the parliament that we may need to look at other options.

Another thing that we need to look at here is the fact that there is an enormous amount of technological advancement in relation to the data that is available in this space, and so what may apply in 2023-24 may be a different model again. As the commissioner has pointed out, most of the transmissions in relation to this are already in real time. We went to the election with a commitment to look into the best way to provide a service in this area and, even in the short time since the election, there has been massive technological change and we may have a different model again.

As you know, the member for Florey has frequently raised a model that has been used for 20-odd years in Western Australia. As I have indicated to her, if it was a situation where that took over as the most popular and the most contemporary model, it would be something we would consider, but the reality is that nobody else has picked up Western Australia's model in the last 20 years.

I am also corrected to say that it does include diesel. I am thrilled. I have a few diesel vehicles, so I would be very happy for that. I might need to check out where the closest diesel price is when sitting on a tractor but, in any event, that is excellent.

Ms MICHAELS: May I now take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 31, line 17, which is the FTEs for Consumer and Business Services.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it is 231.1 for this year.

Ms MICHAELS: It is 232.1 for this year.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am sorry.

Ms MICHAELS: The year 2018-19 had actuals of 250 and then there was a budgeted reduction for 2019-20 to 230.8. Can you explain the rationale for reducing the budgeted allocation of staff?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I can. I will just find the exact information on it. The decrease in FTEs from 2018-19 actual to 2019-20 budget is mainly due to an increase in savings in 2019-20, which are allocated in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review.

Ms MICHAELS: Was there a particular area that those staff were reduced from?

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

Mr SOULIO: No, it was across the board where we were able to identify savings through moving to online products and changing the way we operated. There was not an area that was shut down, for example; it was more just across the board.

Ms MICHAELS: Thank you, commissioner. Going then to the 2019-20 actuals, which was 222.8—so eight fewer FTEs than the budget—was there a reason for that that you can inform the committee, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I will invite the commissioner to deal with what I think is a similar situation; is that right?

Mr SOULIO: Yes. We were able to make more savings because we knew we had more savings to make. Where there was an ability to achieve greater savings in that year, we effectively banked those for future years.

Ms MICHAELS: Is that what has happened in 2020-21 with the budget of 232.1—so going up by about 10?

Mr SOULIO: Yes, effectively, we are running under budget to maintain those savings.

Ms MICHAELS: The Auditor-General's Report states the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registrar advised that delays in completing and reviewing the reconciliations of the Promadis to general ledger were due to a turnover of staff in the team leader position, and a similar issue had been raised in previous years by the Auditor-General. Attorney, have there been any investigations undertaken into the turnover of that staff position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not by me is the first answer to that. Although we have not yet had the Auditor-General's committee hearings on this matter, I am happy to invite the commissioner to identify if there is anything further to be added, but I do point out that the Auditor-General did give a clean bill of assessment. So that has not been identified as any conditional approval by the Auditor-General of the books of account. We are dealing here with the budget as distinct from the Auditor-General's Report. There will be an opportunity to ask questions on that in a different committee.

Ms MICHAELS: I now take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 32, line 14 in the activity indicators table on residential tenancy bonds. Can the Attorney advise the committee how much money CBS holds at the moment on residential tenancy bonds or at least by 30 June 2020?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. The situation here on the number of residential tenancy bonds lodged and the number of residential tenancy bonds refunded—and we have all sorts of data here, and I will just try to give exactly the one available to you—I am having a quick look to see what is available on bonds, but of all that information they have given me they did not give specifically that, so we will take it on notice and provide that.

Ms MICHAELS: Thank you. Are you able to advise the number of unclaimed bonds that are held at 30 June 2020?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I even have that. I will take that on notice. I am heartened to see that there had been a 55 per cent reduction in wait times, which tripled in the review of the operational area of the CBS late in 2019, and that bond refunds were processed 74 per cent quicker than projected. These are always important performance indicators.

As you know, the bonds in relation to residential matters are held and managed by CBS and the bonds in relation to commercial tenancies are, of course, under the management of the Small Business Commissioner. I am advised that the number of bonds held is available, and I can provide that information if the member would like that.

Ms MICHAELS: I believe that is already in the report, thank you. On the issue you just raised, Attorney, regarding the average working days to process bond lodgements, there is a target for 2020-21 for offline, which is double the actual for 2019-20. There is also an increase in the line below that: the average working days taken to process bond refunds target is five when the actual for 2019-20 was 3.1. Is there a reason for the increase in the wait time?

Mr SOULIO: So you are interested in projected wait times?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes, why were you budgeting or targeting for an increase in wait times?

Mr SOULIO: I think what has happened is that during the course of this year we anticipated that we would still be managing longer wait times, but with more moving to online we have actually been able to free up some resources. So that is probably not something that will necessarily continue as a wait time, hopefully, but that is where we were thinking it was going to go because of turnover in staff and changes to systems. But I think at this stage, we will maintain quicker turnaround times.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is 74 per cent quicker. Well done.

The CHAIR: Member for Enfield, just for my benefit, could you remind me which budget paper?

Ms MICHAELS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 32.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is average working days taken to process bond refunds, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Got it, thank you. Before I call the member for Enfield, I am going to ask committee members please to cease chatting while the committee is in progress.

Mr PICTON: This is the second time you have raised this now. They are still chatting.

The CHAIR: It is. Member for Schubert and member for Kavel, I am doing my best to hear both the questions and the answers. Please desist. Member for Enfield.

Ms MICHAELS: On that same budget paper reference, of the unclaimed bonds that are held, are you able to advise what percentage is due to tenants and what percentage is due to landlords? You may need to that take on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I expect we will have to take that on notice and will do so.

Ms MICHAELS: Are you able to advise how much interest was earned for unclaimed bonds in the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We may be able to do that. No, I am told by everyone that that is not actually able to be done, at least immediately. We can do it; we will take it on notice.

Ms MICHAELS: Your annual report, Attorney, found that there was a CBS residential tenancies bond—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, my annual report?

Ms MICHAELS: Your annual report, yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mine?

Ms MICHAELS: The Attorney-General's. The residential tenancies bond system was subject to a fraud incident in February 2020. Can you outline the circumstances relating to that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. Between 8 January and 10 February 2020, the CBS residential tenancies bond service was targeted by a series of related attempts of fraudulent transaction. All payments and banking were placed on hold while CBS investigated the matter. These were recommenced on 11 February. That investigation identified that a single amount of $12,000 was obtained without appropriate authorisation by a fraudulent actor. No further transactions were identified. Software experts attended CBS. CBS reported the matter to the major fraud branch of SA Police and there is an ongoing investigation in relation to that.

At the request of SA Police, CBS also reported the matter to the Australian Cyber Security Centre. The matter was reported to the Attorney-General's Department Chief Executive, the Chief Financial Officer, the agency security executive and the cybersecurity adviser. I have received briefings on it. Then, on 11 February, the matter was reported to the Auditor-General. I note that you, I assume, member for Enfield, have read the Auditor-General's Report because there was nothing in that to suggest that he had concerns in relation to this matter. In any event, it is a matter that is ongoing with the police.

Obviously cybersecurity is with us. I am advised here, and I am able to tell you, that the initial advice from SA Police was that intelligence checks indicate the activity may have been carried out by an overseas offender, so somebody who is trying to break into our system and who has the benefit of $12,000. CBS has also engaged SRA Information Technology to assist with a thorough and comprehensive review of the online bonds management process. Always we are dealing in this space with potential attacks at the cyber level. This was one that was effective, so it is really now in the hands of the police.

Ms MICHAELS: I now move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 32, line 10, in relation to liquor licensing applications. Of the 5,634 applications referred to in the 2019-20 year, are you able to indicate how many were new liquor licensing applications compared to transfers or variations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice.

Ms MICHAELS: Are you able to advise how many new liquor licensing applications were made in the last quarter of the 2019-20 financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, we will take that on notice, but obviously we were heavily under COVID in that time.

Ms MICHAELS: We have a projected number of liquor licensing applications for 2021 as being 5,000. Are you able to advise how many have been made to date?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you mean in the last five months?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice.

Ms MICHAELS: Are you able to advise how many liquor licences have been transferred, varied or expired as a result of businesses going out of business due to COVID restrictions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot personally, and I do not know that we retain that data. There may be some capacity to identify whether the state government has provided another service of counselling, support or mediation where that is claimed to be a factor. However, to the best of my knowledge there is no data that is available that we would keep in CBS as to the cause of the transfer or dissolution or, in other words, the withdrawal of the liquor licence.

For example, obviously there can be other reasons why liquor licences are transferred. It may be into family. There is one in a regional town at the moment we are looking at, where the whole town is changing its size and effect and what it might do, so the liquor licence may need to change. We do not have that, so I do not think I can assist you further.

I will say this, that although the liquor licensing industry—that is, hotels, restaurants and cafes where there are licensed events and where there has been a shutdown in that industry—has had to take quite a significant loss on the chin, certainly they have been supported with their staff being provided for on JobKeeper and the provision of business support opportunities.

It is fair to say that particularly the hotel industry is a major enterprise in the sense of the payroll, as well as both the revenue and expenses they have in their operation, but they, together with the gambling opportunities, have come back since the restriction on hospitality and had very significant patronage. I think it is fair to say that for those who have been able to operate a liquor licence for the sale of liquor over the bar together with bottle outlets have in some ways been cushioned through this difficult time.

For example, I saw interviewed last night a hotelier who said, 'Look, we've had to shut down just in the last few days.' It was difficult, obviously, trying to come back on very quickly when the expected time frame for shutdown was then abbreviated, but she pointed out that they then had a very good trade at the bottle shop that continued to operate.

I am getting to the good bit from the commissioner because, of course, through the government approval, he has waived fees for these liquor licensing outlets. I have somewhere here who the big losers are, and that is CBS revenue stream. Annual liquor fees for 2019-20 will be down $3.6 million; liquor application fees, down $0.2 million; BDM fees, down $0.6 million; and Casino and TAB recovery, down $0.2 million. So minus $4.6 million will be available.

There are also very significant gambling fees that were deferred. I do not have them. I have recently read about them. Again, there has been a significant hit taken in relation to COVID in this area. It is largely via the commissioner's department, which will have less revenue.

Ms MICHAELS: I refer page 32, limited liquor licence applications, where 4,600 was projected and the 2019-20 actual was 6,053. That is a substantial jump. Is there a reason behind that? I cannot envisage how that was COVID related.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that on notice as well.

Ms MICHAELS: I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 51, the table, regulatory fees. You may need to take this on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At what point? At page 51, I am, yes.

Ms MICHAELS: Page 51, in the table, a reference to regulatory fees.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, sales of goods and services?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes. Are we able to get a breakdown of how much the commissioner receives in revenue for each type of business in terms of licensing and registration fees? For example, how much is received from builders' licence registration, liquor licence registration?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it can be; we will have to take it on notice.

Ms MICHAELS: Can we have for the actuals for 2019-20 and the forecast for 2020-21, if that is possible?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The budgeted for 2020-21?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For each area of regulation; is that what you are seeking?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So whether it is an occupational licence or whether it is a liquor licence, gambling or whatever? Yes, I understand.

Ms MICHAELS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They earn quite a lot of money for governments, I am pleased to see. Not all my departments do; in fact, the only one in the courts, I think, is the probate office. They earned about $12½ million this year; that was happy looking. Nobody wants to celebrate dying, I suppose.

Ms MICHAELS: I am conscious of time. I do not know if the Attorney would like to switch to the Small Business Commissioner.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you have any questions for the Small Business Commissioner?

Ms MICHAELS: I do.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I confirm that Mr John Chapman is here solo.

The CHAIR: For the benefit of the wider audience, we have moved to the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. Having introduced your advisers, Attorney, do you have a statement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that Mr Andrew Swanson is also still here, and he is in charge of everybody.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, I take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 68, the second line which is the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. The Office of the Small Business Commissioner's annual report notes that on average, from July 2019 to March 2020, there were inquiries made to the Small Business Commissioner of about 92 per month, but in the final three months that dropped to 48. I wondered whether there was any reason for that, given that was a particularly tense time for COVID for small businesses.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I will invite the commissioner to make any comment on that.

Mr CHAPMAN: Sorry, which level of inquiries?

Ms MICHAELS: Average inquiries for the month, per month, in your annual report, which I have here if you require it. Page 23 of your annual report had a table with a month by month breakdown of inquiries. If I average the first nine months it is about 92, and if I look at the last three months it drops to about 48.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice.

Ms MICHAELS: There is no logic as to why it would have reduced in the last quarter during COVID?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, we will take that on notice. I will need to check the actual annual report.

Mr CHAPMAN: If I can make a point Attorney, the level of inquiries shifted very much towards the COVID act in terms of those inquiries. These inquiries related to the Small Business Commissioner Act. We saw quite a significant shift in our inquiries to retail and commercial leasing matters that were covered by the COVID act.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, can you advise how many complaints or ask the commissioner for advice on how many complaints he received in relation to late payments of accounts by small businesses by GFG Alliance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot. The commissioner has provided ongoing support for that issue in our northern town, and I do not think it is appropriate that we provide particulars of that. I think that is a matter that is ongoing and on which I am given regular updates by the commissioner as to the assurance that GFG is attending to payments particularly for those small businesses that operate within the town or provide services to GFG.

It is fair to say that there are outstanding liabilities to government agencies and that has occurred over a period of time. With the support of the commissioner's office and the commissioner, he seems to have produced a scenario where there is relatively prompt payment to the local people who provide services and product to that company.

Ms MICHAELS: Has the commissioner, if you are able to disclose, been involved in any mediations to resolve any of those disputes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms MICHAELS: In terms of the resources that the Small Business Commissioner has put into dealing with these disputes with GFG Alliance, are you able to indicate the nature of the resources, the number of FTEs?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, a record is not kept in relation to that. There are certain people who are utilised from time to time, but there is an overlap in relation to resources that are used.

Ms MICHAELS: Have any of those disputes raised with the Small Business Commissioner been resolved, or are they all ongoing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is they are all ongoing in relation to the payments.

Mr CHAPMAN: Yes, in relation to the payments, when matters are raised with me I work with GFG and generally they are resolved very quickly. There are no ongoing issues at the moment.

Ms MICHAELS: How many inquiries were made with the Small Business Commissioner in relation to the Security of Payment Act for 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the 2019-20 financial year?

Ms MICHAELS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We should have that available for you in just a moment. I refer you to page 33 of the annual report.

Ms MICHAELS: Are you able to let me know the monetary value of the claims made for 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not in that material, no; it is the numbers per month for 2019 and 2020.

Ms MICHAELS: Is that information available on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is available on notice, as a total apparently. The amount claimed is $47 million in round figures, and awarded is $18.8 million in round figures.

Ms MICHAELS: Using those figures then, Attorney, it appears that only about 40 per cent of the claims were awarded. Does that mean there is about 60 per cent where subcontractors have been left out of pocket? What happens to that difference of 60 per cent, that $28 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Of course, some could be dismissed. There are myriad reasons: they may have settled in a different manner, but we cannot presume that people have been left without a payment.

Ms MICHAELS: Are there any trends that the commissioner has determined for that gap?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take all that on notice, but I suggest you have a look at the annual report as to what has happened in relation to that. That is all on page 32. But nothing has been brought to my attention by the commissioner to suggest that there is some problem in that regard. He seems to work diligently in his office in relation to the support of those matters. It is a statutory obligation, as you know.

Ms MICHAELS: Yes. Is the commissioner aware of any other issues with unsecured contractors being left out of pocket as a result of any construction companies going into liquidation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the commissioner if he would like to comment on that.

Mr CHAPMAN: Thank you for the question. Really, the issues in the building industry in terms of disputed payments have declined somewhat in terms of contact to my office. That may be as a result of the significant government support that is available and keeping the industry moving along quite well at the moment. There are no particular issues that I am aware of in relation to people not being paid or indeed liquidation or administration.

Ms MICHAELS: Thank you, commissioner. Attorney, may I move onto small business grants, on the same budget line, page 68, line 2, Office of the Small Business Commissioner. Are you able to advise how many inquiries the commissioner had in relation to the first round of the $10,000 small business grants, if any?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised there are approximately 30. It is subsequent to the relevant period that we have under consideration, but I am advised by the commissioner that there about 30 that he has taken up with the Treasurer.

Ms MICHAELS: Is the commissioner able to advise the nature of those inquiries? Was it not qualifying or missing deadlines?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, it is not really the remit of this report. I suggest you raise that with the commissioner separately. If you would like some extra data on that, I am sure he could provide you with a briefing on it.

Ms MICHAELS: In terms of any inquiries the commissioner did receive and the announcement of the round 2 grants, has the commissioner made any representations that deal with the shortcomings he may have seen in those inquiries for round 1 that have been dealt with by round 2?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I do not see that this is the subject of the budget matters. There are applications being made, and some are successful and some are not. They are managed by the Treasury department. Consideration of what else might be needed will be a matter for the government to consider in relation to any ongoing support.

In the meantime, as you well know, in relation to the commercial tenancy arrangements, for example, there are protections in place. There is a very valuable service that the Office of the Small Business Commissioner provides with its contracted mediators to support settlement of those issues. If there is no resolution, the commissioner has the capacity to issue a certificate to enable the Magistrates Court to provide a determination in relation to any ongoing dispute.

Almost remarkably, to me, anyway—I should not say that, because it seems that most of those that have gone to the Small Business Commissioner for resolution have been resolved and there are only very few that have actually been referred. We know that because the Small Business Commissioner, under the legislation, has to provide a certificate to enable that to happen.

There have probably only been seven or eight cases, I think. There were 82 mediations and 11 unsuccessful. In any event, on discussing it with the Magistrates Court, I think they have only had half a dozen cases and only a few of those have actually progressed for determination. There are 28 mediation certificates.

It is fair to say that one has to expect that there is the opportunity for commercial parties to have discussions themselves—either privately mediate a matter or represent with their own legal and financial advisers—as to how they resolve issues in relation to either tenancy and/or other landlord-tenant matters. I do not think that is unusual.

Obviously, we as a government do not have the data in relation to that but it seems, given that the Small Business Commissioner is the government's agency to be able to support these matters, for those who have come to him or his officers, that they have had a very high success rate in mediating resolution.

Mr PICTON: What is the Small Business Commissioner's view on the eligibility of the $10,000 grants?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is not a part of this hearing.

Mr PICTON: Why is that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Because there is no budget provision for a policy determination of government.

Mr PICTON: The budget determination is in relation to the advocacy of the Small Business Commissioner in his role and he provides advocacy for small businesses. So what is the view of the Small Business Commissioner in relation to the eligibility of the $10,0000 grants?

Mr KNOLL: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To date, this is not relevant to the matter that is before us.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. I am anticipating—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to reassure the committee, I have not had submissions put to me by the Small Business Commissioner or other agencies of mine to suggest there is some deficiency in relation to government initiatives, which the government are very proud of.

Mr PICTON: Has the Small Business Commissioner made submissions to any government department in relation to the compensation available for small businesses?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the answer to that, but it is nothing to do with this matter.

The CHAIR: Before the Attorney answers that, I am just going to go back to the point of order that the member for Schubert was looking to raise. Do you still wish to do that?

Mr KNOLL: It was in relation to relevance and what budget line the member is seeking to ask questions on.

The CHAIR: My view of it, member for Schubert, is that the question was actually out of order, because the member for Kaurna was not asking the Attorney-General a question but rather the Small Business Commissioner for his opinion.

Mr PICTON: Point of order on the point of order: I was asking the Attorney in terms of what the Small Business Commissioner has done. She is accountable to the parliament for the Small Business Commissioner.

The CHAIR: No, if we go back two questions ago, you were asking the Small Business Commissioner what his opinion was on a particular issue. Anyway, we will get back to the budget. Continue, you have seven minutes to go.

Mr PICTON: What representations has the Small Business Commissioner made to the government in relation to compensation for small businesses because of the pandemic?

Mr KNOLL: Point of order: I would ask the member to identify which budget line he is seeking to ask questions on.

The CHAIR: That is reasonable. Member for Kaurna, can you do that?

Mr PICTON: Yes, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 68, line 2.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot see the relevance of that.

The CHAIR: Office of the Small Business Commissioner. Alright, continue.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, to me personally, as the Attorney-General—

Mr PICTON: To the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am the minister responsible for this division, the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. In the time I have had the management of this, there have been times when the Small Business Commissioner has provided advice to me in relation to bushfire support and regions of South Australia that were adversely affected, as well as valuable advice in relation to responses on COVID. They have been considered.

Mr PICTON: Has the Small Business Commissioner raised with you the sufficiency of compensation for small businesses?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Generally or—

Mr PICTON: In relation to the COVID pandemic.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the COVID pandemic? Generally, yes, and they have been answered.

Mr PICTON: What were the issues raised by the Small Business Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That there be support, and there has been—very significant support. There is an ongoing $10,000 small business support. We could go through and list all the government initiatives, but that has been raised, that there would be support. In fact, it has been translated into legislation, such as the need to support commercial tenancy arrangements. There is a whole structure, which the member for Enfield just asked a whole number of questions about, that have been—

Mr PICTON: Have there been issues raised in relation to eligibility for the second round of $10,000 grants?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not to me.

Mr PICTON: To anybody in government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I know of.

Mr PICTON: Has there been any issue raised by the Small Business Commissioner in relation to an independent review of hotel quarantine?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: He is right next to you; you could ask him.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just saying to you, not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: So there have been no issues raised with you, from the Small Business Commissioner, in relation to a review of—

Mr KNOLL: Point of order, Chair: I think the budget line the member is now seeking to ask questions on does not actually relate to estimates in this hearing. I would have thought that would be more to expenditure under the Health portfolio.

Mr PICTON: This is advocacy that the Small Business Commissioner is doing with his budget.

The CHAIR: I do not uphold that point of order, member for Schubert. However, I might ask the member for Kaurna to rephrase the question.

Mr PICTON: Has the Small Business Commissioner advocated to the Attorney, or to anybody across government, in relation to a review of the management of the pandemic?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is a very general question, but not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: Would you be able to ask the Small Business Commissioner if he has asked anybody across government in relation to a review of the pandemic?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I do not think that is necessary as part of this committee.

The CHAIR: Just wait a moment, Attorney. Member for Kaurna, you have asked the Attorney if she will seek advice. That is entirely her prerogative, of course; you understand that. Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have answered the question.

Mr PICTON: Has the Small Business Commissioner raised with you, or anybody across government, concerns in relation to small business and its ability to manage following the events over the past week?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. Do you mean by that the closure that was introduced as a result of the particular Parafield-Woodville incidents?

Mr PICTON: Correct, the lockdown. So the Small Business Commissioner has not raised any issues with you in relation to the Parafield cluster?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Has the Small Business Commissioner raised with you broader issues in relation to the viability of small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have a number of regular discussions with the Small Business Commissioner in relation to what assistance he is providing to people. I have listed a number of them as a result of legislative introduction and provision of mediation services—that is, commercial tenancies—and the ongoing legislation reforms, including security of payment law. I have regular meetings with the commissioner.

He has also assisted in relation to the provision of services to bushfire-affected areas. I know he has been to Kangaroo Island to provide resources there and, I think, is still part of the ongoing hub—if I can describe it as that—at Kingscote. They are continuing services that are available because that community has been hit by bushfires and, of course, COVID-19. Tourism operators, for example, are some that spring to mind. After the bushfires and then COVID, they have been adversely affected. Of course South Australia is currently experiencing a bit of a boom, but—

Mr PICTON: Is that what the Small Business Commissioner said?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am just suggesting to you that on the information we have there has been a very substantial uplift in relation to some—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: my question is in relation to what the Small Business Commissioner has raised, not the Attorney's view of the state of the world.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just letting you know—you have asked a—

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, and we have been through this before. We have a minute to go, member for Kaurna, but the Attorney can answer in whichever way she sees fit.

Mr PICTON: Well, it has to be relevant.

The CHAIR: I suspect she was referring to regional tourism in her response.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, last question.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. Has the Small Business Commissioner raised with anybody in the government, including you, as he said in InDaily today:

…we're dealing with dozens and dozens of businesses struggling to pay their rent, businesses aren’t able to pay other businesses in terms of supply.

The ripple effect of this…makes it very, very difficult for businesses.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I note that I will take it as a comment.

Mr PICTON: So he has not raised any of those concerns with you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, but to be fair, if you are talking about this past four-day period, I am assuming he has been in isolation for three of those days (Thursday, Friday and Saturday). He did not contact me in that time. Yesterday, I was in my office in the city for a good part of the time and he did not contact me then, and the first time I have seen him this morning is to come here to the estimates.

Mr PICTON: Perhaps we could ask him if he has raised it with anyone else across government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not going to be answering for other people as to whether that has been raised.

The CHAIR: Attorney, I am going to call a stop to proceedings.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir.

The CHAIR: We have reached the allotted time and I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio agency of Consumer and Business Services and the Office of the Small Business Commissioner complete.

Sitting suspended from 16:47 to 17:00.

Membership:

Ms Stinson substituted for Ms Michaels.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Ms S. Smith, Executive Director, Planning and Land Use Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms A. Allen, Director, Planning and Development, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms K. Bartolo, Valuer-General.

Ms J. Cottnam, Registrar-General.

Ms A. Hart, Director, Local Government, Office of Local Government.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to Estimates Committee A. I wish to advise the committee that the member for Enfield has been replaced on the committee by the member for Badcoe. The portfolios to be examined during this session are the Office of Local Government, Outback Communities Authority, Local Government Grants Commission, and Planning and Land Use Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Planning and Local Government. I advise members that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination. Attorney, would you like to introduce your advisers, please?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee. Joining me today is the Executive Director of Planning and Land Use Services, Ms Sally Smith, to my left. Behind me are Ms Anita Allen, who is the Director of Planning and Development; Ms Alex Hart, Director of Local Government; Ms Jenny Cottnam, who is the Registrar-General for South Australia; Ms Katherine Bartolo, who is the Valuer-General for South Australia; my Chief Executive Officer of the Attorney-General's Department, Ms Caroline Mealor, the committee has also met today; and still with us, still surviving, is the Chief Financial Officer for the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Andrew Swanson. It is a champion effort for those two in lasting the distance.

In relation to this newly acquired area of responsibility, Planning and Land Use Services and the local government agency that sits within that are identified today in the budget for the first time as a separate program. I am very pleased to have this area of responsibility. I wish to especially thank both Ms Smith and Ms Hart as heads in those areas for the work they have undertaken and acknowledge, at least in their absence, the board, executive officer and staff of the Outback Communities Authority, who have been most helpful through this time, particularly in the COVID area.

I also wish to thank the Registrar-General for the extraordinary work she has undertaken, especially with the New South Wales Registrar-General, to deal with the interoperability of areas of responsibility, largely now being operated by Land Services SA since there was an outsourcing of a significant contract under the previous government. I also wish to thank Ms Bartolo, the Valuer-General, whose work continues with her staff, together with the valuers who are contracted for the purposes of undertaking valuations for the state. They are all important areas of responsibility.

I do not specifically have representation here today from the Surveyor-General but, as you would know, he is also a statutory officer. In fact, he recently concluded work on the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission report that was undertaken. He is also an employee of the department and is head of a unit within the Planning and Land Use Services division. He is not here as the Surveyor-General, but I am happy to take any questions on notice for his role. He is multitalented and works for both Ms Smith and for South Australia as the Surveyor-General.

I think that pretty much covers it, but I am more than happy to place on the record my appreciation to the whole of the divisions that I have referred to for their work during COVID. There has been major planning reform and local government reform, either in the legislation that is now being implemented from 2016 or in current legislation that is before the parliament, which is a difficult exercise to be able to undertake when consultation with the public is required. There have had to be contingency measures put in place to ensure that people still have a voice and are able to be consulted in relation to these reforms. Notwithstanding that, they have done a stellar job, and I thank them for their services during the preceding year.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Ms STINSON: Only to thank the public servants and the Attorney for appearing today. I know things have been very difficult with COVID, and I know it is a department that is doing a huge amount of work at the moment, so I thank them for the additional work that estimates would have taken, and I appreciate their presence today.

The CHAIR: Excellent. I invite questions, member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, sir. I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 128. This is in relation to the Local Government Infrastructure Partnership Program, which has been announced in the budget from the Community and Jobs Support Fund. This has certainly been marketed as a COVID measure, so my question is: why is the bulk of the funding, that $75 million of the $100 million, not being spent until 2021-22?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is intended to be over two years; I think that is very clear. It has been announced in this year's budget. Of course, we are already five months into this financial year, so unsurprisingly the bulk of it will be in the following financial year. I am also advised that this particular fund is committed to the Treasurer, which I think would already be obvious to the member; nevertheless, he will be appearing in estimates on Wednesday, so you may want to raise those matters with him.

Ms STINSON: What restrictions will be placed around the fund in terms of how quickly it needs to be spent? Obviously, $25 million is to go out this financial year and then $75 million in the following financial year. Does that actually mean we will see that money hit the economy in those respective years, or is there, for example, 12 months or two years for the councils that are successful to then spend that money?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are time limitations, but again I suggest that you refer that to the Treasurer when he appears in the committee. It is his department that manages the operation of this. I am aware of some circumstances where stimulus money in relation to these types of projects has had to be held over or delayed for certain reasons. Nevertheless, he can give you an update in relation to the advance of that. We are absolutely committed to it, and it has been announced, so I just simply say as a member of the government that it is for projects on a fifty-fifty basis and, I have to say, has been incredibly warmly welcomed by those in local government. I think the Local Government Association put out a media statement on the day saying how pleased they were about it.

Ms STINSON: The fund is designed to be fifty-fifty, with local government contributing the other 50 per cent. Do you see any issue with that in terms of limiting access to the fund to councils who already have reserves they are able to spend, and is that something that you are looking at changing at all?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No and no.

Ms STINSON: Are there any criteria that mean that that fund needs to be spread evenly across the state, or is it simply a matter of who applies?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware of any distribution that has to be on the basis of an equal amount per region or something of that nature. Again, you can ask the Treasurer, but my recollection in relation to this is that it is on an application basis, so if the Streaky Bay council put in four applications and the Grant council put in none, well, Streaky Bay has a 400 per cent more chance of getting something.

Ms STINSON: I move on to municipal services in Aboriginal communities, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 53. Indeed, there are a number of other references.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Of course, but I will find it just for the ease of giving you some extra information.

Ms STINSON: The budget papers say that there was a review of infrastructure in Aboriginal communities. Is that publicly available? If so, can I get a copy?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether it is, but we will make some inquiries. No, the report is not available.

Ms STINSON: What is the reason it is not available? I am sorry, I realise Ms Hart just said that, but I cannot hear her properly.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Obviously, it has been prepared for the purposes of identifying what is needed to be done. That is not automatically available, of course.

Ms STINSON: Can you outline what its key findings are or, indeed, what its recommendations were in relation to what infrastructure should be funded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. In addition to the MUNS program, which provides $3 million per annum to support services typically provided by councils in other areas of the state, to be delivered in Aboriginal communities outside of the APY lands, there is an additional $9.1 million over the next two years for the repair and renewal of critical MUNS infrastructure across the communities. In April 2015, the commonwealth government transferred responsibility of the MUNS program to the state government, along with a one-off payment of $15 million representing five years of funding under the MUNS program.

Services funded by the MUNS program include waste management, dog control, environmental health control, road and airfield maintenance, and water infrastructure maintenance. Details of grants and services provided in the 2020-21 grants program are attached, and I have a whole list of those if you need them. I am happy to make them available if you would like them.

Ms STINSON: Thank you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In total, nine Aboriginal communities, three local councils, the Outback Communities Authority, two Aboriginal homeland organisations and two private contractors receive funding through the MUNS program.

In December 2018, the state government released the South Australian government's Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. The plan included a proposal to develop a municipal services policy and program for municipal services delivery to Aboriginal communities outside the APY lands for implementation post 2020.

The review you have referred to was undertaken from August to December 2019. There was consultation with the Aboriginal communities themselves; the Aboriginal Lands Trust (which, incidentally, owns something like half of the areas that are subject to the benefits of this); the South Australian Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas; and relevant government agencies.

The two commitments are there. I have indicated the ongoing $3 million general expenditure and also the extra funding of $9.1 million. From our point of view as a government, it is an unprecedented investment. If the member has not attended a number of these properties—

Ms STINSON: Indeed, I have.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —I would encourage her to do so. The last one I attended was in Davenport, just out of Port Augusta, and there is a significant level of critical need of infrastructure. Some of it is just to simply demolish and remove. The areas and properties I saw there are quite dangerous. For example, if children were to play on them, there would be some potential risk of injury. So, I do think it has been a worthwhile exercise and the government have seen the benefit of this and announced this extra money in the budget to deal with the clean-up of a lot of these problems.

Ms STINSON: Did the review actually recommend certain infrastructure to be funded and, if so, was that funded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My recollection is that there was more than $9 million worth to do, but this has been identified. There is a body to consider who gets what and where, out of what has been identified, and that will be a process that will be undertaken in consultation, of course, with the Aboriginal Lands Trust, particularly as nearly half of those communities are operated by ALT.

Ms STINSON: Was all of the infrastructure that was recommended by the review fully funded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I just said that.

Ms STINSON: What is the value of the infrastructure that was not funded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that with me but if it is available and able to be provided, I will provide it. I will take that question on notice and that has just been noted.

Ms STINSON: How many municipal services in Aboriginal communities agreements need to be signed and how many communities or townships do they cover? Can you give an idea of what the time line is for getting those completed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take all those on notice.

Ms STINSON: Will any of the agreements require additional funds from government? If so, how much, and is that included in this budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I believe so. Just in relation to the preparation of the documents for signature?

Ms STINSON: No, in relation to the municipal services in Aboriginal communities agreements.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. Is this for the infrastructure or the general annual allocation for services?

Ms STINSON: Correct me if I am wrong but I understood that those agreements were to do with the ongoing service delivery, separate from the infrastructure.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Ongoing, sorry. I am advised that we can be confident that that can be done in the usual $3 million a year. That relates to their ongoing service provision.

Ms STINSON: That is within the existing resources?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Ms STINSON: In relation to the infrastructure upgrade, can I obtain a list of what infrastructure is to be upgraded, in which locations and when?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have just explained, member for Badcoe, that that is yet to be determined. It will be in consultation with the ALT who are responsible for or have on ALT land a number of these communities. Obviously, this is fixed infrastructure, so they will need to be consulted.

Ms STINSON: Is there a time line as to when all of those upgrades are to be completed, that $9.1 million over two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I took that in the question before. You asked me three questions: how much it would be, where it would be and over what period of time it would be initiated. But the budget papers disclosed that this is a two-year proposal; 30 June 2022 is the expected final time, but I think you were looking for a more detailed time line previously.

Ms STINSON: That is correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have taken that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Could you explain the difference between the municipal services delivery program and the municipal services infrastructure fund, and how much is in each?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: One is to pick up rubbish, keep things clean, make sure the water is operating, clear up the leaky taps, etc., and the other one is to clean up any infrastructure that needs to be managed.

Ms STINSON: Shall I take it then that the municipal services delivery program is $3 million per year and the infrastructure fund is the $9.1 million over two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Ms STINSON: Thank you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to be clear about that, these communities do not have local government services.

Ms STINSON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Some nearby local government services to towns provide some of the services on the communities, but these communities are across the state and they need somebody to do all the things that usually local governments do to make sure there is some amenity around the property, including the collection of rubbish, management of water supply sometimes—that is important to be dealt with—landscaping even. But obviously there is also water infrastructure that needs to be looked at and at least kept an eye on because there might be taps leaking and things of that nature.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 53 talks about supplies and services in relation to Aboriginal communities. Reading that, it looks like it is rising from $714,000 in the last financial year to more than $6 million next financial year. What is the explanation for that? Is that because that line includes the infrastructure money that we have just been talking about or is there some other reason for it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it includes that.

Ms STINSON: Could you tell me what the additional FTEs are in the Office for Local Government? It is going from 7.5 to 11.1. I just wondered what those additional roles were?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is them; the difference between 7.5 and 11.1. Two are for MUNS and there are some other staff movements.

Ms STINSON: Two are for MUNS and the others are?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From staff movements.

Ms STINSON: On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 53, in relation to the local government review bill, when do you intend for that to start operating? I understand that it is before the Legislative Council at the moment, but is there a start date or a planned start date for that new act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Member for Badcoe, I do not ever presume a start date for anything when something is in the parliament. But in the event that the parliament were to support the passage of this bill—and I note your indication in this house that there may be some amendments you want to recommend in the upper house—there is support for the government on the bill, and we appreciate that. On the basis that we are able to sit for one or two weeks of the December sitting times—there is a week scheduled and an optional week—I am very hopeful that, although we cannot tell the Legislative Council what to do, they will deal with this legislation and it can be promptly passed.

The actual initiatives within it would be rolled out over a period of time. To give you an example, firstly, in relation to rate monitoring it is proposed, on discussion with the Local Government Association, that there be a rolling out implementation of that over three years so that the first third of the councils is to be negotiated. Apparently, there is already a sort of division of councils that they look at for the purposes of a rollout of these things. Over the three years that would be rolled out so that for 2020-21, if this is passed this year, that could be implemented for assessment by ESCOSA in 2021 and it would roll out in that period.

In relation to the legislation to employ the use of the Remuneration Tribunal for the setting of chief executives, I imagine that chief executive entitlements and salaries could be underway by the early part of next year, whenever they sit. Currently, there is an application before them for judges. I know that because I looked at the submission this morning, so I know they regularly sit, but it would be subject to their program and to councils that have a renegotiation of the contract for their CEs coming up. That seems to me to be an area that can be undertaken fairly quickly.

The third area relates to the behaviour management model to be implemented, which I expect will take a little more time, firstly because, as indicated, panels need to be established and we need to think about who is going to be on them and the like. The general understanding, as I recall, with the Local Government Association, which is vested with the responsibility on behalf of their councils to work out how this is going to apply, is generally to follow, as I understand it, the model of our Local Government Grants Commission, which also deals with boundary disputes.

The theory is that it would have a person nominated by me as minister, a person nominated by the LGA and a person that we both mutually agree upon; I think that is the general formula. As soon as it is through, I am ready, willing and able to sit down with the LGA. I may not be too happy to sit on Christmas Day or Boxing Day, but I am sure we can get on the phone. I am just simply saying that it will be rolled out over a period of time during 2021 to implement the aspects of that. It is expected to be fully in place by the end of 2021. It may be changed on the basis of rating to capital value.

As you know, and I have that detail here, a number of our councils (seven) rely on site value still, and the rest rely on capital value. There are some that will be transferring over. I think probably the one other area that would be of importance to the committee—but I appreciate the member would be aware—is the consideration of councils to ensure that they are 12 or fewer as a total of their elected members by 2026; that is the effect of that legislation.

Ms STINSON: What was that 2026 reference in relation to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By 2026. The legislation indicates that it is the time of their review. They have an election coming up in 2022 and, as I think I have explained to the parliament, two councils that I am aware of would come up for consideration and would have to attend to their reduction before the 2022 election. There are another 13, I am advised, so 15 altogether that would have up to the 2026 election to get their house in order in that regard. The Productivity Commission has been very clear about the need to do this, and the government has accepted that.

Ms STINSON: Attorney, could you tell me what the cost is of the Behavioural Standards Panel in terms of both its establishment and its ongoing cost?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that before me, but I will try to get some information on it to assist. In the course of the discussion, there are two things that I think are evident. Firstly, it is a model that has been developed by the councils and the Local Government Association to try to deal with the problem that they have had for many years. Secondly, councils are paying legal fees—some of them at an extraordinary level—to get legal advice, to protect, promote or support an elected member or staff member, whatever might apply, and for the long inquiries that are often undertaken by the Ombudsman's office.

So there is a massive cost that is currently applied from councils' budgets to try to deal with these issues, even to the extent where I am aware of two councils that proceeded with intervention order applications in the courts. It is an expensive current situation, and the loss of productivity for councils in having to manage these issues is a really big issue. Councils understand that. They want this reform. I am advised that it is in the order of about $500,000 a year, but that will be determined. That is an estimate based on the costs surrounding the grants commission that we already have, which I have just referred to, on a similar basis.

One has to compare that against the huge savings that the councils will benefit from in being able to utilise this model as distinct from going through very expensive litigation. I understand the cost is around $20,000 to $30,000 per complaint. This is a massive amount of money. One only has to look at the annual reports of local government that come through this parliament to see what is spent on legal fees. Sadly, a lot of that relates to the issue in relation to behaviour.

Obviously, there are other aspects in dispute, planning reviews and things of that nature, but the reality is that this is a really expensive exercise. We have also had a former Ombudsman give a very significant report on the Burnside council, for example, which ended up in the Supreme Court. This clearly has to stop, and we are doing everything we can to support local government. The Burnside cost was about $400,000, and, frankly, that is just the legal costs. I am a ratepayer there, so I can tell you I am not happy.

Mr KNOLL: Point of order, Mr Chair: we have somebody taking photographs in the chamber.

The CHAIR: Yes. He did ask me if that was okay. I was a bit unsure about that. My understanding is that photographs are permitted but without flash photography.

Mr KNOLL: It is normally only for those on their feet speaking, I understand.

The CHAIR: To take photos?

Mr KNOLL: Yes.

The CHAIR: We will move on, I think. I will talk to the member for Kaurna about that later.

Ms STINSON: My next question is in relation to the Outback Communities Authority.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What page?

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 68. Why have you budgeted $2.1 million this year for the OCA when only $1.3 million was actually spent last year? What additional spending are you expecting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to give you an answer on that. Firstly, the breakdown of the $2.13 million is $700,000 for the usual state appropriation, $740,000 for the usual Leigh Creek appropriation—there are two staff there—and a proposed extra $676,000 to deal with some capital expenditure for an aerodrome fence, which OCA are currently responsible for managing. So there is an extra payment in that year. There is every likelihood that that will continue over the next five years as we transition Leigh Creek.

Ms STINSON: On Leigh Creek—if you need another budget paper reference, Budget Paper 5, page 15—could you enlighten me about the new governance model for Leigh Creek, when it will be implemented and also when demolition works are scheduled?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is still under consideration, but as you might note there is a $30 million-plus allocation in the budget to deal with demolition and clean-up. This was a town of 2½ thousand employees of a coalmining company, plus other residents, who moved from the old Leigh Creek to the new Leigh Creek in the mid-1980s, from recollection. The whole town was moved because they discovered there was a lot of coal underneath it, so they built a new town down the road, bulldozed the old one and dug up the coal.

The consequence is that we have since then had a very effective coal operation there for the last 30 years. In recent years, I think in about 2016-17, the company, Flinders Power, moved out of Port Augusta, handed back what was left in the coalmine and walked out of the town. My recollection is that Mr Foley was the Treasurer at the time, but it might have been Mr Koutsantonis. Either one of them kept the money in the bank that was supposed to be used for the clean-up and here we are left with the town. So, yes, our government will deal with this issue. We have allocated $30 million because the first $5 million or so was clearly not going to be anywhere near enough to clean up the town. We have had advice from the Department for Transport. We have put that money on the table.

The second area is how we prepare the town for being a township of 133 people. I can tell you, because I only read the memo about this particular aspect last night, that there are 133 people who live in the town: 32 of them are children and 101 of them are adults. I think about 47 or so of those are from the Indigenous communities who live in the town. I think the others work for the energy company up there and also hospitality and public servants. About 38 of them, from memory, are public servants.

It is a very much smaller town. They have a hospital, which was frankly magnificent. I doorknocked the whole of Leigh Creek with Graham Gunn in about 2009, so I had a pretty good insight into the new town.

Ms STINSON: That would take a day, wouldn't it, with 133 people?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, there were 3,000 people living there at that stage. But now, of course, it is a shadow of what it was. Clearly, as a government we also need to understand that for those who are living there and the services that it provides to the whole of the region, whether you live in Beltana, Copley or any of the other regions north and south, there needs to be some reprofiling of the services provided.

From memory, it has a tavern and a supermarket that are privately run. It has a cemetery, which I think the OCA runs. They are looking after the aerodrome services at the moment. There is a school, with 52 children, some who live in the town and some who come in from other areas, such as Copley. There is a swimming pool, which costs about $160,000 a year to maintain. There has been some regrading of the netball courts and the sporting facility areas, lots of them that have been consolidated into an area. There has been some work done already to try to deal with some of those amenities.

The idea of the previous government was to try to give it some new future, but clearly there has to be a lot of work before that can be done. In the meantime, no final decisions have been made about the governance model. However, the Outback Communities Authority has been provided money, some of which I have just referred to, to be able to continue to provide management. It is $3.4 million over five years to support those municipal services.

I should also mention the hospital there. It probably needs a clinic. Even when I visited there in 2009, I think there were two people living at the hospital. Hardly anybody used it. Most people who had any serious injury were brought straight down to Adelaide or Port Augusta so, frankly, it was very underutilised even then.

So looking at ambulance, royal flying doctor, health service and clinic facilities is a whole new reprofiling for this town. It is important to remember that the people who live in the outback need to have these services. It is important to understand that on a daily basis we have thousands of grey nomads, especially out of my electorate, because they have nowhere else they can go at the moment, during COVID, crawling all over the state.

Ms STINSON: Point of order, sir: I feel we are straying from the point here.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We need to keep Leigh Creek, but it is going to have a whole new overhaul.

Ms STINSON: Excellent. Thank you for that very detailed answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would be happy to take the member for a tour up there one day, when it is all done.

Ms STINSON: I would love to. I would happily take you up on that, Attorney. That would be lovely. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 68, I just had one question in relation to the Local Government Grants Commission. Can the Attorney say what share of the national federal funding South Australia received—that is, what percentage of the total amount provided by the feds to the states and territories? What percentage did South Australia get?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Local Government Grants Commission—that is our South Australian one—will distribute a total of $165.2 million in financial assistance grants to local governing authorities during 2020-21. That includes $122 million for general purpose grants and $43.2 million in identified local road grants. Eighty-five million dollars of the 2020-21 FA grants were brought forward by the federal government and paid to councils in May 2020. This included $62 million in general purpose grants and $22.3 million in identified local road grants.

The commission's 2020-21 FA grants allocation was approved by the federal Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government (gee, I thought I had a long name but, anyway, that is his or hers) on 11 August 2020. South Australia also received additional untied road funding from the Supplementary Local Road Funding program; 2021 is the final year of that program. We received $40 million during 2019-20 and 2020-21. This funding is not guaranteed beyond 30 June 2021.

In addition to that, the Supplementary Local Road Funding program is an additional allocation of untied road funding to address the inequities, etc., in allocation of funds. South Australia receives 5.5 per cent of that identified local road funding pool and maintains 11.8 per cent of the local road network with just under 7 per cent of the national population.

The commission's FA grant recommendation is based on an allocation methodology that assesses each council's capacity to provide services against the average across the state using a policy neutral assessment process as required by the federal legislation. The methodology assesses both capacity to raise revenue and need for expenditure across a standard bucket of services.

Ms STINSON: Excellent.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, it is a rather more complicated formula. That is how it gets applied. It is not quite the same as our usual situation, where we get a share of federal money and it is based on population, which is often a rule of thumb. This one is a little bit more complicated legislatively, so that is how it works. I hope that is clear.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions in relation to local government, and I want to move on to planning, if that is okay.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank Ms Alex Hart, not to be confused with my son Alex Hart. From time to time, I have actually picked up my phone to ring the poor Ms Hart to ask about planning and find out I have a useless journalist son on the other end who cannot tell me anything. So I have been very pleased to have Ms Hart. I now welcome Sally Smith, who is in charge of planning and lots of other things.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 47, and it is no surprise that I will be asking a few questions about the Planning and Design Code. What is the expected implementation date or go-live date for the planning and development code?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I expect early next year at some stage but, in short, the code is out for consultation at present. Obviously there have been some challenges in relation to being able have all the attendances at the public consultations. I think it is 18 December that that concludes, and the commission will give me a report.

Ms STINSON: So you cannot be any more specific than early next year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I am going to ask Ms Smith to give an update on the consultation arrangements because, in short, you might recall that this was a matter that had been due for considerate implementation a few months ago. There were nearly 1,800 submissions that were received. The commission reviewed that matter and looked at a number of things again and has made some modifications, which I am sure the member is familiar with. In short, it has been a bit longer a process, but it has been a very important one. I invite Ms Smith to make a further contribution.

Ms SMITH: Thank you, minister. I just wanted to run through the events that we had planned and what we have had to reschedule as a result of the COVID matters over the last week. We have 11 community webinars scheduled. We have already had five of those and they have been really well attended so far. We have had 75 people attend those. That is about understanding the code, helping people work through the electronic system and also teaching them how to use the online submission tool should they wish to make a submission in that way.

We had nine community drop-in sessions planned because we wanted to try to do as much consultation as we could face to face this time, given we were restricted for phase 2 consultation. We did not actually have a lot of interest in those events. We have had 32 people register across the nine community drop-in centres. We have unfortunately had to postpone all of them to date and we are just in the process of trying to find venues to reschedule them.

Where we cannot do that, we have made direct contact with all those people who were registered to advise them that we will find an alternate means to engage with them. We have also offered them the chance to talk to us one on one. Over the coming days, we hope to reschedule and find venues that will allow us to hold events in accordance with the COVID restrictions. We will get that information out to people as soon as possible, because we are keen to run as many face to face as we can.

We have also held three of four State Planning Commission briefings. We have held one with the elected members, one with industry and one with community leaders. As a result of elected members needing an alternate time frame, we have also scheduled another session for elected members with the chair, Michael Lennon, leading them in a discussion around the code changes.

Then we have 16 practitioner training sessions scheduled before the end of the year. These will cover the code mechanics, how to undertake an assessment against the code if you are a town planner and, for the building professions, also understanding how the new system works and some of the key changes.

Finally, we did have three regional planning sessions organised in Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier and Port Augusta. Unfortunately, all had to be cancelled as the first event was to happen last Wednesday, which obviously would have been impossible. Wherever possible, we are trying to work with the people who are interested in talking with us directly and finding a way that we can do that in a way that they can get access to us. That is where we are at the moment, but we will endeavour to get as many face-to-face sessions in before 18 December.

Mr PICTON: On the same budget line, I am wondering why there has been a resistance in terms of providing briefings on the planning code to members of parliament. I wrote to the previous Minister for Planning, the member for Schubert, on 21 February this year and did not receive a response to my request for a briefing on the impacts for my electorate of Kaurna in the southern suburbs. I wrote to the member for Schubert again on 20 April 2020 and did not receive a response to my request for a briefing.

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: standing order 97 requires leave before a series of facts is introduced. No leave has been sought and here is a series of facts.

Mr PICTON: So much for informal.

The CHAIR: It is relatively informal. The member for Kaurna has laid some background and he is coming to his question.

Mr PICTON: I am getting there. Then, obviously, the member for Schubert was no longer the Minister for Planning. I wrote to the Attorney on 25 September 2020 asking for a briefing. She responded on 11 October—so eight months after my first letter—and made reference to a number of websites but no acceptance or offer of a briefing. There was mention of one officer in her department, and my staff have been trying to contact him. Will the Attorney make available officers to provide members of parliament a briefing on the implications of the planning code for their electorates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I take that as a thankyou for giving you a letter of response within two weeks, providing the information I am sure you would have found helpful and ensuring that you have every opportunity to attend the briefings that have been detailed by Ms Smith today. But I think it is important to say that providing a briefing in relation to a draft plan is not something that we would be providing until we have a plan.

Now is the opportunity, including up to 18 December, for the member or his staff, or anyone really in his constituency, to go along to the public meetings and ask questions about the detail on these matters to be able to make that available. As you know, there are briefings provided if there is legislation or if there is implementation of a new program. Let's face it, by the end—

Mr PICTON: This is a new program.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The implementation of it. We are not actually implementing it yet. The process is one where it is a draft. We have implemented the first two: outback and, of course, the regional areas except Wallaroo and Kangaroo Island and the main towns. This phase 3 is the large end of it: 90 per cent of development applications are dealt with in this phase 3 area.

So, thanks very much, you left the hard bit for us at the end, but that is fine; we will sort it out. I make this point: whilst this is going on, everyone in the state has an opportunity to come in and go to these consultations. We have a call centre which takes about 100 calls a day in relation to the draft. As I understand it, during this period there will also be councils, planners and other people who are going to be using this service on a regular basis, through the new ePlanning portals and so on, and they need to be able to go to that information just to check out the pure validation of the data. Do they have everybody in place? Have they captured all the areas and information that need to be online?

This is a validation process. I have seen how these things work. I used it as an example before but I remember there was a redrawing of boundaries between Heysen and Bragg, and they left out a whole street of people—they got completely disenfranchised. I make the point that we do need to have a period of time for the professionals, including those in councils, to be able to say, 'Hang on a minute, you have left off this community,' or, 'This town next to this river is not in there.' That is what is happening now.

When we have finished that—and when I say 'we', the Planning Commission has put in a report to me about what they recommend—I am expecting that we can look at the introduction of that phase in the early part of next year. I am in their hands at the moment, but I have made it very clear that we want a resolution of that process by Christmas. I am assured that that is why the date has been set at the 18^th. They will give it some consideration and give it to me, and I expect I will have some happy holiday January reading, and we will get on with it.

Those aspects need to be sorted out and that is the process. I am very mindful that, once this comes into place, members of parliament, on behalf of their constituencies, will want to be able to get a briefing about how it might work and be given an opportunity for its application and, at that stage, I think it would be the sensible time for us to consider—

Ms STINSON: When it cannot be changed anymore?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just saying you have plenty of opportunity—the member interjects to say, 'When it cannot be changed anymore.' This is the third phase of the code which, in general terms, will mean that we can get on with getting rid of the old Development Act and really getting full bottle into the application of the PDI Act.

That will be a great time. The whole process was announced by the former Attorney to take five years back in 2016. I thought he was joking at the time but anyway, here we are. It is planned to be all done and dusted by 30 June 2021. I am the new minister and I am working very hard—well, I am not doing all the hard work, the department is—to make sure that is achieved. If the member is worried about not knowing what is going on, please go to a session. If you need some extra help, let us know and we will see what—

Ms STINSON: We have been trying to call you. We have been trying to ring you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, you asked me for a briefing. I have indicated to you that we are still in the consultation phase. If you want a briefing on how the new system works, when it is done, please come back to me and I will give you some extra assistance.

Ms STINSON: But you cancelled his session.

Mr PICTON: Have any briefings been provided to any members of the Liberal Party?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I know of; I cannot remember any. Members of parliament?

Mr PICTON: Members of the parliamentary Liberal Party.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, no. They have also been advised, like everyone else, that this is an opportunity to go and put some more information in if they want to. I struggled, in the initial phase, just to be able to operate the equipment, but I am getting there.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 47, is, I think, the one we are already on. The code has more than doubled in its number of pages since the last version was released last year; it is now 7,849 pages. How does the Attorney recommend that members of the public actually determine what the changes are for them, from the existing rules to the new rules, under this latest incarnation of the code? Surely she does not expect your average person who wants to know what the planning changes are going to be to wade through 7,849 pages, come up with constructive questions and go to a planning session about it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just say, in short—

The CHAIR: Attorney, there is a point of order from the member for Kavel.

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: 97, sir. There was considerable opinion and extensive argument in that question. We have all been reasonably patient and listened to questions of that type for quite some time, but I do draw this particular question to your attention. So far as the answers are concerned, as members will know, the minister can answer however she wishes—and competently, in this instance.

The CHAIR: Which I have reminded members of today, but I also remind the member for Kavel that it is a relatively informal affair, as I announced earlier. Given that we are on points of order, while the Attorney is—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, enough interjecting. It was a little while ago, but I did miss the member for Badcoe's point of order; I suspect related to relevance.

Ms STINSON: Indeed, sir.

The CHAIR: It did, indeed. From that moment on, the Attorney seemed to get back on track.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps the member for Badcoe should have a look at the tax act some time. In any event, I am not sure that the information provided to her through the committee is exactly right. I am advised that under the Development Act there are currently 23,000 pages, if you print out all the development plan provisions there.

This new proposal—and I know because I have it sitting on my desk in my office—is 300 pages of policy. The rest of it is tables, and there are also maps online showing the changes. I do not know where she gets those figures from, but this is a very substantial reduction in the material that needs to be considered. There are some helpful guides to the changes that have already been published, so if she has constituents who are trying to track the changes from the draft that is now out then they are available.

I think it is fair to say—I am a lawyer; I am not a planner—that I found it difficult to navigate the drafts that came out some months ago. It was a whole new approach to this. Nevertheless, the information populating this ePlanning program is an enormous amount of data, and we need to get it accurate and we need to have this validation period to do that. For the member for Badcoe and any other constituent in South Australia who wants to have a look at this and how the changes have occurred, there is some helpful material online to do that and, secondly, to advise of any corrections that need to be made.

Ms STINSON: Disappointing.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a comment.

Ms STINSON: You can take that as a comment. What money is expected to be expended on the implementation of the planning and development code and what is the total cost of the new planning and development code and the ePlanning portal associated with that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I indicate, first, that the planning reform implementation total, that is, from July 2016 to June 2021, is expected to be $43.6 million, which is $27.6 million in capital and $16 million in operating. The total capital expenditure to 12 October, a few weeks ago, was $37.3 million. My recollection, although I cannot find it here immediately, is that when Mr Rau announced the reforms back in 2016-17 he allocated a budget of $25.8 million. He had spent a good slice of that by the time he left, so the last 2½ years we had to find a lot more. That is the situation. I am checking some figures specifically in relation to the third code. The online Planning and Design Code build, just in relation to the code, is $3.26 million, and the drafting of the Planning and Design Code is $4.1 million.

Ms STINSON: How much money has been spent on the code since 1 July this year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will have to take it on notice.

Ms STINSON: How much will the government be taking from the Planning and Development Fund in 2020-21 to pay for these reforms?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: $6.7 million.

Ms STINSON: How much was taken from the Planning and Development Fund in 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: $13.4 million. Just so that it is clear, 2018-19 was $5.3 million.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Has anyone in your department, as it is now or as it was under the former minister, sought additional funds from Treasury over this year or last year for the cost of the code, as opposed to taking the money from the Planning and Development Fund?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot immediately give advice on the—let me clarify this. It is a little bit difficult to break down exactly just for the code or for planning reform generally, because that is a little bit more complicated to break that down again. But the funding sources, as I understand it—$25.5 million from the Planning and Development Fund. I have just given you the breakdown of the last three years of how that has been applied, that $25.5 million.

Ms STINSON: Just to be clear, are you referring to that $25.5 million as the planning reforms or as the code?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Planning reforms total—that includes the code. A very substantial portion—I have given you the breakdown of the capital payment of that, which is $27.6 million of the $43.6 million. So $25.5 million from the Planning and Development Fund; general appropriation, $16.9 million; council levy, $1.1 million; and, the commonwealth (the SAFECOM bushfire mapping), $0.1 million. So that is the total funding sources for the planning reforms.

Ms STINSON: How much does the state government expect to recover from the local government sector for charges connected to the ePlanning system and/or the code in 2020-21?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have given the $1.1 million as the council levy—is that for this year? Yes.

Ms STINSON: That is for this financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Do you know what you are expecting to get from next financial year for those fees? Presumably they will be different, seeing this was upfront.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the planning reform program, I do not think there will be any. Just to clarify that, the council levy of $1.1 million I have just referred to is over two years, but this is a—

Ms STINSON: I am sorry, for which two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The last two years.

Ms STINSON: So, 2018-19 and 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms STINSON: I understand that there is a 50 per cent rebate. Will the state government extend the 50 per cent rebate applied in 2018-19 and 2019-20 to councils for charges connected to the ePlanning system considering that the ePlanning system will not become fully operational until the second half of 2020-21?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no provision for them to make a payment for 2020-21. There is no discount for this year.

Ms STINSON: There is no discount for—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This financial year.

Ms STINSON: For 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For 2020-21.

Ms STINSON: How much do you expect to bring in from those charges? Surely it cannot be the same as the last financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would not think so, but I think we are talking about a slightly different thing. We are talking about the funding of the reform and then we are talking about how much of the levy will be ongoing. The ongoing levy from this year will continue without a discount. And is there any discount after that? No, because we will be operating.

Ms STINSON: So how much do you expect to receive from the levy in 2020-21?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that on notice for the total of councils; I do not think I can give you a breakdown.

Ms SMITH: We could give the breakdown.

Ms STINSON: Excellent; I will take the breakdown then, thanks. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 16, the budget states that the planning reform implementation will be complete by June 2021. I understand from your earlier answer you are hopeful that you will be implementing this before 2021?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Phase 3 of the code?

Ms STINSON: Indeed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The whole of the reforms will be implemented by June 2021.

Ms STINSON: Considering that $10.5 million was expended on this reform in 2019-20, according to that budget paper reference, why is only $3.9 million being budgeted in this financial year, which is obviously the year of implementation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just give me the page number on that, because you are using a different reference.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 16.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just point to me where we are on the investing expenditure summary.

Ms STINSON: Just below halfway down, where it says 'planning reform implementation'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What was your question, sorry?

Ms STINSON: Under 2019-20 actual it has some $10 million, but I understand that only $3.9 million has been budgeted for this financial year—the 2020-21 budget line.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is the total. The total is $25.101 million and the budget for this year is $3.889 million. Last year, it was $10.495 million and in 2019-20, $7.735 million.

Ms STINSON: Indeed. There seems to be quite a drop from what was spent last year to what has been budgeted this year. That strikes me as unusual considering that this is the implementation year.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is just the capital. This investing expenditure summary—we are talking about the capital being put in for the equipment and for the program—

Ms STINSON: So for the IT system and so forth?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, the ePlanning program, not the actual staff who are doing all the inputs, etc. This whole page is about investment for capital.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I might just go to the member for Newland, who has indicated to me he has a question.

Dr HARVEY: Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the Attorney on Budget Paper 5, page 19. Can the Attorney explain why it is important for the government to spend $3 million on flood mapping over the next two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Wonderful. I am really pleased to have an opportunity to talk about this because I love maps. I just love maps, and—

The CHAIR: So do I, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —I was really sad when somewhere in the previous government they closed down the whole mapping division of government. But I have discovered, in my new-found portfolio, that there is a person who works in there who actually creates maps. Boy oh boy, do we have some beautiful maps on our wall now. This whole objective, though, is to deal with the mapping for floods.

Digitised flood mapping has been really, really important. I can remember the complete chaos in metropolitan Adelaide, for example, when there was major flooding through some of the creeks from the north-east area through the Mitcham Hills, etc. Unley was completely flooded. Poor old Mr Koutsantonis' electorate was under water. Some of it ran into drains into the Airport.

Ms STINSON: And indeed some of mine.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Badcoe points out that part of her electorate was running around in galoshes. I have to say that most of it was coming off my electorate. I am sorry about that, but the reality is it rushes down the hills and a bit of it swirls around at the bottom of the Glenside Hospital site, where there is a big detention dam, and tries to cram under the street but floods the whole way along there. People get shocking damage.

One of the things that is really important if we start to plan, whether it is in metropolitan Adelaide or anywhere else across the state, is if it is next to a creek, a river or an area in relation to flood, mitigation is required. We are living in the 21^st century, and it is time that we are able to, firstly, have a process where the community can be alive to knowledge about where there is flooding potential, whether you live along the River Murray or any other creek line, or the Gawler River; you name it, there are lots of areas of flooding. It is very dangerous, it is highly disruptive and it is destructive of property and value.

The current flood hazard data is going to be reviewed, then we will prioritise it into areas of critical risk, and enhance and expand the coverage of flood hazard mapping across the state. A higher quality of mapping data will allow for hazard overlays, which will be part of our Planning and Design Code to be updated.

The data, of course, will help the emergency services people as well in relation to this, so it is a really key, important area for the Attorney-General's Department, the Department for Environment and Water, the State Emergency Service, the Environment Protection Authority, the Local Government Association, councils generally and the customers, the people who want to live in these areas, who are paying rates in these areas or who are relying on taxes in these areas for liability or benefit.

I think it is a great initiative. I am thrilled about it. I think we are allocating $3 million in this budget to advance this mapping. That poor little chap who is sitting in Ms Smith's department will have a friend for life online. It will be the new virtual reality of flooding. He will be happy as.

Ms STINSON: Excellent. I think we are still on the same budget page reference.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Which was?

Ms STINSON: Which was Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 47. My question is in relation to the Planning and Development Fund. What is the total amount of money that came into the fund in 2019-20, and what is the total amount that went out in grants?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On average, it is about $14 million a year. What was the year you asked me for?

Ms STINSON: It was 2019-20—as in, what came in and what went out?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On average, it is about $14 million a year, and I thought that was very important. The previous minister announced that there would be an extra $15 million brought forward for the—

Ms STINSON: Indeed. I have some questions about that, if we get to them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will try to be quick for you, because I am very proud of this. It has come in. Roughly, about $8 million went into the 2019-20 year. I think they had $22 million spent on those projects for the last financial year, and this year it will have $14 million-odd, plus the balance of that money that has been brought forward.

Ms STINSON: When you say there is an average of $14 million—I know you have said that a few times in different forums—is it actually $14 million? Is that the base amount that gets moved each year? If not, what is the actual amount for 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It does not have to be, but it has been regularly about $14 million—that is the advice I have—in the last two years.

Ms STINSON: What was the amount in 2019-20?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Open Space and Places for People grants got $22.7 million in grants.

Ms STINSON: That is what went out?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms STINSON: And what came in, in the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The total expenditure from the fund? I will just go back to the revenue first then, if you want to do it that way.

Ms STINSON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The revenue into the fund was $38.8 million in the 2019-20 year: $27.6 million came in from fees and charges; appropriation of $11.1 million, which is Treasury; and interest was $0.1 million. That is the total of the money that came into the fund. The money that went out, firstly, for grants—that is, the Open Space and Places for People grants—my understanding is that that was almost all for open space grants for actual projects, as distinct from buying property, because there are two benefits in that scheme. Apparently, it had been previously discussed, once COVID had hit, how it was more important to have projects being built in council areas, rather than buying up blocks of land or pieces of real estate. My understanding is that the $22.7 million that went into grants during that financial year has almost completely gone on actual projects, as distinct from buying property.

Ms STINSON: In the 2019-20 year, we had $38.8 million in total revenue to that fund and then $22.7 million went out in grants. Did anything else go out of that fund?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, the Strategic Investment Grants. These are previous grants that have been provided. I will tell you what they were. The implementation of planning reform was $13.413 million, which I have referred to before; the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide has $1 million a year come out of that fund; Greener Neighbourhoods is $1 million; the Outback Play Space and Social Hub is $48,945; the Marino Coastal Walkway, stage 1, is $140,000; the Moonta Street upgrade, which is in the city just off Gouger Street, is $2 million; and the Moonta Street reinvigoration, which is part of the Chinatown redevelopment, is $500,000, so that is $18.1 million.

Ms STINSON: For each of those items you just listed off, for example the Marino project and the Moonta Street projects, were they funded out of particular funding lines, or is this a fund that has some discretionary ability for the minister to fund things?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It does, yes. Those are already prearranged payments that have been made. The 30-year plan money comes out on a regular basis. I think the Greener Neighbourhoods one has. The others are specific. Some of them have to at least be approved through cabinet processes, but I cannot be sure, as they were before my time. There is also the implementation of planning reform, which I have referred to.

In addition to that, as the minister I apparently own property on behalf of the people of South Australia that has already been acquired. Somebody has to pay to maintain it, so $0.9 million also went out last year to DEW for land management because they have to kill pests, undertake bushfire management, fix up fences. pay the rates on it and whatever else has to be done, so that all happens. Land management administration is $0.1 million, so in round figures it is $1 million to maintain and support property that I apparently own that is ready to be, I suppose, developed for open space benefit to the community. There is also an administrative recharge fee, which is $1.3 million.

My understanding is that most of these have been there over a number of years. You can see with the money that has gone into it that, instead of it just being developer's fees and charges, it has also had an appropriation of $11.1 million.

Ms STINSON: Yes, you mentioned that before.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I make the point, though, that it is not just receiving the open space levy, as such, from developers. It is now getting other moneys coming into that fund for appropriation but, on the advice I had, the fund usually had a fee of about $14 million that went out specifically to open space grants. Because I think that needs to be maintained and the government previously made a decision to bring forward another $15 million, last year they got $22 million and this year I think they will get about $20 million.

There is a lot of extra money on the table for projects, but I have to say that councils have really stepped up to get these projects ready, and I very much urge them to get more ready because this year's round is open. I have written to them all recently. Next year, let me tell you, that will go out in July, so I want the councils to have these projects ready to get on with because we are really keen to have the stimulus of this, obviously, during COVID, and also to give the opportunity for councils to have these much-needed projects. The Premier and I were privileged to go down to the City of Holdfast Bay a month or so ago to see a fantastic new playground. They pulled that together within a matter of months and it was great to see.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 47 talks about the cladding audit. I just wonder if you could tell me how much funding has been committed to finalise the cladding audit, and also how much funding has been committed to education or information programs for property owners or purchasers in relation to the use of ACP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is an important area. I will try to be as quick as possible. If there is a specific amount to be found, then that will be done within existing resources. The member is probably quite familiar with the background on this. There had been an audit done, the three phases were to identify the buildings, and councils were part of that. The second phase was to investigate the sites to determine risk. Phase 3 was to provide a response and remediation.

There were 17,000 publicly owned buildings that were looked at in phase 1, with 126 buildings identified for further investigation and 52 found to incorporate cladding. Two buildings were identified as high risk; that is a toilet block down at Sturt Street Community School and the Avenues College. Both of those rectification works have been completed. There were 39 buildings at moderate risk. DPTI wrote to each agency that owns buildings that were subject to the audit. The Adelaide City Council was also involved in some extensive work in relation to that.

Of the 172 privately owned buildings—and this raises another challenge because so many of these are apartment buildings—identified as of potential interest, 124 were found to incorporate cladding and 28 were identified as high or extreme risk. As at August this year, this number was reduced to 10 by owners working with the relevant councils' building fire safety committees. There were over 550 occupants in the buildings originally rated high or extreme. DPTI have received confirmation that over 430 have been advised of their building being part of the state ACP cladding audit. Now what we are left with is: how do we deal with these properties and future owners or tenants or occupiers?

Ms STINSON: Indeed, that is why I asked about the education funding.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is the issue that our department is currently working on. The Attorney-General's Department have looked at and are already considering how to amend the form 1, which is a document that is presented at the time of conveyance, transfers, etc., so that we do a number of things that I think are very important. One is that any landowner of property that is subject to a cladding audit and is of high or moderate risk needs to disclose fully to any prospective purchaser, and any new purchaser is entitled to have that information—

Ms STINSON: Indeed; so are you going to do that through the form 1?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and any tenant or occupier of that property, especially if they are going to live in it, I personally think needs to have some notice that they are going into a building where there is this potential risk. That is what we are working on at the moment.

Overlying all of this is the advice that we received, and the former government received the same advice, from the MFS—I think the CFS were involved as well as SAFECOM and others, but the MFS particularly; I recall seeing some material from them—in consultation with SAPOL, to go out and advertise certain buildings as having had some of this cladding on it. The ACP was going to introduce a further risk of potential arsonists who would try to light fires, etc.

All around Australia, that advice was given. All around Australia, governments acted in the same way, not to put a great long list on the front page of the newspapers regarding what was happening here. But what we have to do is now think that if there is a high to moderate risk in relation to a property that people are going to live in or are already living in, then we need to in some way let them know. There is a process here of people being told about that, but I am now working on this question of how we deal with the future.

Apart from that, some professional indemnity insurance issues have been raised by a number of the building surveyors and engineers, and they need to sign off on remediation works, etc. How we deal with that liability is being dealt with at a national level. There are a number of options that are now being explored through the building minister's meeting, the next one of which will be this Friday. This is a new job I also have; the member for Schubert would remember these. They are all about a national meeting to discuss the standards in relation to building structures. As I said to some of my staff yesterday, this is not my area of expertise. The biggest thing I have ever built is a chook house, which I am pleased to say is still standing.

But we do need to have national rules on standards of structures for the safety of people and animals, and anyone else who is going to occupy them or walk through them, so we need to make sure that we have compliance. There is a whole raft of issues that still need to be looked at, and that is something that is being looked at nationally.

Mr SZAKACS: Supplementary, Chair: in the advice that you received from SAFECOM and the MFS, particularly regarding the cladding considerations and publication of the totality of risk, at the same time or within that advice did you receive advice from either SAFECOM or the MFS regarding the adequacy of their moving fleet, their firefighting fleet, to either guard against or to respond to the totality of the risk that cladding posed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I recall, but at various times over the years I have had advice from the MFS. I used to act for a lot of firefighters in my previous life and they gave me all sorts of advice as to how effectively they can put fires out in buildings—I think nothing over the seventh floor if I remember. I think I sat on the seventh floor of a building at that stage, so I was getting a bit worried.

I do not recall in that correspondence anything in relation to their capacity to be able to deal with it. I do recall there had been some discussion as to how they identified low, moderate or high risk, and some of that related to the capacity of the number of exits and things of that nature, so that there was an evacuation plan in the event of there being a fire.

I could not be more specific than that. They obviously had some matrix as to how they identified those things, but there were two aspects of that. One is their advice related to the identification of the area of risk but also their concern that there should not be a public disclosure of the addresses of these properties due to concern about a future arson attack; that is, somebody might think, 'Beauty, I will go and torch it.' I know we deal with arsonists, particularly in the bushfire envelope, but in relation to this area, as we have seen from incidents in Victoria and in London, for example, there are catastrophic outcomes from this.

So that is something that I think that our government and also governments around Australia have taken notice of, and we have respected that. As to your specific question as to whether there was any other detail of their fleet capacity, I do not recall anything of that nature.

Mr KNOLL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 55: I am wondering whether the minister has an updated time frame on the construction of stage 1 of the coastal path at Tennyson.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think stage 1—it has been broken into two stages—would be expected to start later this year or early next year. I think we actually got some money back from the Charles Sturt council. Originally, they had given the money I think, member for Schubert, to undertake that work, but, in any event, it is going ahead. Everyone is happy down there, as I understand it. There might be a few people who—

Mr KNOLL: Not everybody, but yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In any event, it is going ahead, and I think it will be a very important project. I think I mentioned, in some of the funding that the member for Badcoe asked about, some moneys that had been allocated in the 2019 year—that budget is there and it will get spent. It will be a delightful walk, and I will encourage all members of the committee to go to utilise it when it is done. I think even the member for Lee had made a public statement, and I appreciate his endorsement of the importance of this project.

Ms STINSON: In the moments remaining, I want to ask some questions in relation to the Office of the Valuer-General. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 49, my question is whether the government has decided, and indeed advised the Valuer-General, what changes, if any, will be made to the valuations of retirement villages. If so, what are those changes and when are they due to come into effect?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I welcome our Valuer-General to respond. I have already introduced her to the committee. I do not specifically have any funding allocation for that, but I will ask her, in any event, whether she is happy to give you an update in relation to the progress of that review.

Ms BARTOLO: The funding for the independent living unit changes forms part of the revaluation funding. It was designed and allocated as a whole of project; it is not itemised, as such. That will be delivered for the 2021-22 financial year.

Ms STINSON: Has there been a decision on how those ILUs are going to be rated? If so, what is that decision and when will it come into effect?

Ms BARTOLO: As far as how they are rated, from a council perspective they have determination under their act. My responsibility sits with their configuration. The configuration will align with the joint committee's option of No. 3, which is the recommendation I put to them. There will be a parent holding valuation record for the whole of the complex, and then there will be tenancy apportionments for each of the units contained within it. That then provides councils, depending on their arrangements, with how they choose to rate against them.

Ms STINSON: Is legislation required for that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Ms STINSON: My other question was around the halted valuation process. When was—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, was that the 'halted valuation process'?

Ms STINSON: Yes, indeed. If you would like a budget paper page reference, it is the same one, under highlights and targets in Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 49. My question is: when was the decision made to halt the revaluation process? Why was the decision made? Has the revaluation process now recommenced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That was COVID-19.

Ms STINSON: Has the process recommenced yet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it is already happening. Cycle 2 and cycle 3 will be delivered for the 2021-22 financial year.

Ms STINSON: I am sorry, I did not quite understand that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Cycle 2 and cycle 3 will be delivered in the 2021-22 financial year.

Ms STINSON: When will the different council areas be done?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is part of that cycle.

Ms STINSON: Fair enough. Could you tell me what the valuation assumptions are for this year and how much is residential property forecast to increase in value? I pose the same question for commercial property.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice, if the information is available.

Ms BARTOLO: In relation to what the proposed changes are going to be, we are currently doing extensive investigation. The date of valuation is 1 January, so they will not be known until gazettal on the third Thursday in May of next year. We are mindful of COVID impacts, so we are doing extensive research to make sure that we can quantify those impacts as accurately as possible.

Ms STINSON: That was my final question: what impact will COVID have on the valuations? Also, and I think you just answered this, when is the 2021-22 general valuation due to be completed? Could you possibly just elaborate on what you know so far from your research about how COVID will be impacting the valuations.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we will take that on notice. Remember that the value is as at 1 January—which will be when it is determined, after that time—for effect as of 1 July that year, and the assumptions will be known closer to that point. They may be matters you may want to ask about when it has occurred, rather than pre-emptively, because all those factors are not there. There will be a research paper, yet to be completed. As I said to start with, we will take it on notice.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department and the Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department complete.

At 18:31 the committee adjourned to Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 9:00.