Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $2,666,366,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Tarzia, Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms M. Healy, Interim Chief Executive, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Ms J. Best, Manager, Financial Services, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Ms G. Cornish, Acting Chief Officer, Country Fire Service.

Mr M. Morgan, Chief Officer, Metropolitan Fire Service.

Mr D. Carman, Acting Deputy Chief Officer, State Emergency Service.

The CHAIR: We now come to the portfolios of SAFECOM, SA Country Fire Service, SA Metropolitan Fire Service and the State Emergency Service. The minister appearing is the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. I declare the proposed payments referred from Estimates Committee B open for examination.

I call on the minister to make a short statement and introduce his advisers, as there has been a change of advisers. With the concurrence of the minister and the member for Elizabeth, I have on my list, in order, SAFECOM, SA Country Fire Service, SA Metropolitan Fire Service and State Emergency Service, so it could be that we work our way through item by item. That will facilitate a better use of—

Mr ODENWALDER: I will try to work through item by item, but I would like to start with the Country Fire Service, if I could.

The CHAIR: Yes, it will just be much easier in relation to the advisers present, I think. Minister, would you like to introduce your advisers and make a short statement, please.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Certainly, Mr Chair, thank you. I will begin by introducing to my left Ms Mary-Anne Healy, Interim Chief Executive of SAFECOM. On the second table we have Julie Best, Manager of Financial Services at SAFECOM, and Georgie Cornish, Acting Chief Officer of the CFS. In the third row, we have Mr Michael Morgan, the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Service, and David Carman, the Acting Deputy Chief Officer of the SES.

I will begin with just a very brief opening statement, if I may. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge our brave volunteers and staff in our emergency services organisations, including the CFS, SES, MFS and SAFECOM. I thank them for their contributions in responding to all manner of emergency situations, often going above and beyond in life-threatening situations to keep their communities safe.

As members are aware, following the 2019-20 fires, former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty AO led an independent review to look back at what we did well, what could be improved and how we could better prepare for future bushfire seasons. In response, the Marshall Liberal government committed $97.5 million to create a safer and more bushfire resilient South Australia, including by implementing the review's recommendations. All 27 immediate actions arising out of that review are complete in time for this bushfire season, with good progress being made on the longer term actions as well.

There are significant opportunities this year for emergency services, including the commencement of the Fire and Emergency Services (Governance) Amendment Act 2021, which provides independent decision-making, reporting requirements from the State Bushfire Coordination Committee to the parliament, a requirement for plans to ensure the most effective use of public funds and assets and also appointment of an independent chair to the SAFECOM Board to give it a greater level of independence and make sure the sector's governance structures work to ensure a greater level of transparency and accountability of decision-making.

In addition, there is the rolling out of AVL technology to provide intelligence on the fireground, enhanced safety via location data and planning data to support future capacity planning, a review of the State Emergency Management Plan and delivery, of course, of the new emergency services headquarters at Keswick, which will bring together the emergency services sector into one central location.

Again I would like to thank our hardworking emergency services volunteers and staff for their work over the past year, and I look forward to continuing to achieve positive results with them over the next 12 months.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not have an opening statement, except to echo the minister's comments about the quality of our emergency services. One of the great pleasures of being the shadow minister is that I have been able to meet so many staff and volunteers of these emergency services over the last three or so years. Can I start with a general question. We have agreed to start with Country Fire Service, and I will try to stick to a rough demarcation of services.

The CHAIR: It was just a suggestion.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a good suggestion. I have a general question related to the minister's opening statement. Can I ask the minister what sort of bushfire season we are predicting this year? What is our best guess of how the bushfire season will look this year in terms of the terrain?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not sure what budget line that refers to, but I will take it in good faith.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am referring to your opening statement.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Unfortunately, as we know there is a degree of inevitability when it comes to bushfires in South Australia. What we can do as legislators and as policymakers is make sure that we continue to make our state as bushfire resilient as possible. I look to the members to the left of me, and we have the member for Hammond, who unfortunately has had bushfires in his neck of the woods recently, and also the members for Kavel and Davenport, who all unfortunately know too well the devastating effects of bushfires this year and in other years, and so we do have a—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Hello? Kangaroo Island.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I was getting to you, member for Mawson.

The CHAIR: And the Chair.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes. Member for Mawson, nobody should have to go through what the people of Kangaroo Island went through. I acknowledge the member for Mawson and what his community have gone through and, of course, you, sir, having been to Port Lincoln recently and met so many of the CFS volunteers over there. Unfortunately, bushfires have attacked all corners of our state.

Coming back to the season, I am informed—and of course we do provide seasonal updates in about October each and every year, member for Elizabeth—and the advice I have just received is that we are expecting a later season and also a grass season.

Mr ODENWALDER: A grass season?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: A grass season, as in very high growth, which will contribute to somewhat of a grass season and also a later season. There are extensive fuel loads out there at the moment, I know certainly on the West Coast, sir.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 70, which references the response to the Keelty review. I want to talk a little bit about the community consultation associated with the Keelty review and whether the minister would care also to comment on the royal commission, which was run concurrently. How did the Keelty review approach community consultation on Kangaroo Island given the restrictions of COVID?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. I do remember seeing it actually referred to in the Keelty review, if I am not mistaken, and other reporting on that Keelty review. Obviously, wherever it was able to be done, face-to-face consultation was enabled. However, that said, obviously there were a whole range of interruptions, but I do know that people were able to contribute their consultation via other means. If I am not mistaken, some of that was also provided online. Yes, there were obviously interruptions, and that was taken into consideration and actually referred to in the Keelty review. I do not have it here, but I am happy to get that.

Mr ODENWALDER: So you are satisfied that all members of the Kangaroo Island community were adequately consulted and able to have their voices heard during the course of this review?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Again, no-one should have to go through what the people of Kangaroo Island went through on the island. I have certainly visited the island on a number of occasions, and I do believe that there certainly was a fair opportunity for people to provide feedback in regard to the review. I might have some further information.

I can advise that community members were invited to have their say about the bushfires via the government's YourSAy website, and submissions to the review were sought by 22 March 2020. The review set about planning for interviews and town hall style meetings across the fire-affected areas. As I did allude to, obviously, the review was affected by social distancing requirements, and these were imposed by all governments during the COVID-19 global pandemic during March 2020.

The former minister issued a media release advising that a different approach was needed in the circumstances. Submissions were extended until 17 April. It also became more of a desktop review supported by video, as I was alluding to. There were therefore provisions for videoconferencing, telephone conferencing and also targeted interviews and targeted surveys, as well as online community engagement.

The CHAIR: Has the minister completed? The member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I have a follow-up question relating to the same budget line. What do you say to those brave men and women who went out and put their lives on the line to defend their community, defend their neighbours' properties and their own properties that you could not delay the review so that you could get them all in a room and have a discussion about them after the COVID social distancing had happened?

To say that you did a desktop review and that you had invited these people to go onto the YourSAy app and type out what they said is a real kick in the guts for these people who are now suffering PTSD, not just from what they saw and the actions they had to undertake during the fire but from the fact that no-one from the government has turned up to listen to their concerns?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I reminded the member for Elizabeth, matters strictly within my remit as minister would have begun from 29 July 2020, but what I would say is that we know that we have had the Keelty review. We were the first jurisdiction in all of Australia to commission an independent review. There were extensive action items, many of which are being implemented in relation to Kangaroo Island. For the first time ever, for example, there is a full-time position dedicated in the CFS towards Kangaroo Island. We do appreciate that much grief and much loss were experienced by the people of Kangaroo Island.

All I can say to the member is that if he does have any specific feedback about specific people, I would certainly encourage him to provide that to me. As I said, there has been the Keelty review. Many of those recommendations do touch specifically on Kangaroo Island. There has obviously also been a specific operational review if you like. In the past that has not been published; it has been published this time.

The CFS is certainly dedicating what it can to make sure that they can do what they can to continue to provide more resilience for the island. No-one is certainly being ignored, but if the member does have any specific individual feedback I would be more than happy for him to provide that to me.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I am pleased to do so. First of all, Terry and Cheryl May, two outstanding leaders on Kangaroo Island, not just in the CFS but in general, were stood down without any reason for why they were stood down. That has divided the community over there. You state that the state government was the first in Australia to instigate a review into the bushfires. I would say it is not about who does things first, it is about who does things well. To give Mick Keelty a cut-off date of 30 June, given that COVID social distancing happened, denied the people of Kangaroo Island the opportunity.

I am out in the community of Kangaroo Island and I speak to these people. I see the anxiety, the stress and the mental health problems that they are still having because they have not been asked and they have not been listened to about the concerns with the way those devastating bushfires on Kangaroo Island over the summer of 2019-20 were conducted. They have very real concerns about the CFS. People within the CFS and people outside the CFS have very serious concerns about the way the CFS went about fighting that fire and they have not been listened to.

The CHAIR: So—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Sorry, the minister asked me for feedback from my people and I am providing it to him.

The CHAIR: Alright, and I will make a comment when you are done.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They want to be listened to because they are about to face their second bushfire season post the really bad fire season that we had in 2019-20, and they are absolutely petrified that mistakes that were made in 2019-20 will be repeated. What do you say to those people? When are you going to turn up and listen to them properly?

I heard from people who have said that they felt intimidated at the meetings the Country Fire Service had around the review that they came over to talk about with people within the CFS, one that was invitation only. People felt that they were not invited along. Others felt that when they were there they were stared down by CFS management and they felt intimidated.

The CHAIR: Member for Mawson, I am going to take that entirely as commentary, which is fine. You have spoken about this particular situation many times in this place, and we all understand it. Many of us sitting on this committee have been through similar experiences. In fact, the member for Mawson, before he was the member for Mawson, visited Lower Eyre Peninsula in a similar situation—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I spent six weeks there on the ground.

The CHAIR: —all those years ago. After each and every incident, we all try to learn and do better. Minister, you have had some commentary from the member for Mawson; you can respond if you wish.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I know that the member for Mawson is passionate about this area and I am happy to reply. Firstly, I would respectfully refute that nobody has turned up to listen to concerns. I know that a number of people have visited. I have been to the island personally a number of times and I certainly intend to go back there soon in the not too distant future.

The member did make several comments. There was quite broad commentary, so, sir, what I would ask is your discretion in also responding in a broad manner, if I may. Firstly, I do want to talk about mental health and wellbeing for our CFS volunteers. We appreciate the need for mental health support services for all our South Australian emergency services workers and volunteers following recent bushfire events. Of course, in addition to that, there is also the impact of COVID-19, and we know that the need to respond to those mental health impacts will continue to be important.

SAFECOM has two dedicated resources: a health and wellbeing consultant and an officer who administers the emergency services Sector Wellbeing Intervention Program, the Employment Assistance Program (EAP), and the Stress Prevention and Management Program (SPAM). There is also a SPAM 24/7 helpline designed to help and develop wellbeing programs and training for a target group. In 2020-21, they provided a wellbeing operational presence in the CFS state command centre during the fire season and in the SA Health COVID command centre.

I am advised that there were also follow-up welfare checks of volunteers post the Kangaroo Island, Cudlee Creek, Lucindale and Cherry Gardens fires. There were mental health and wellbeing visits made to brigades and units and the delivery of 10 stress, trauma and suicide prevention awareness sessions. There is also the administration of SPAM and EAP services to staff and volunteers. There is also the development of the SA Mentally Healthy Workplaces framework. There is also an HQ working group to discuss wellbeing strategies for staff because obviously staff can also be affected by this trauma as well. There is also coordination and monitoring of the Phoenix Australia free online training for volunteers and staff of the CFS.

That said, there are also a number of targets left for 2021-22. There is the implementation of the SA Mentally Healthy Workplaces framework with action plans and the delivery of six mental health first-aid two-day workshops for CFS and SES volunteers, which is important. There is also a pilot for a youth mental health program in consultation with the CFS Youth Advisory Council, volunteer peer support officer recruitment, development of a new EAP reporting system and a review of the stress, trauma and suicide prevention training session.

In terms of lessons learned from the island, I think we are talking about Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 34. As you alluded to, sir, the CFS's core business, what they do, is to ensure a continuing of processes and functions to robustly apply lessons learnt and pursue operational improvements in all facets of its operation. I am not sure if the 2007 review was released publicly, but the most recent review was.

In addition to the above and the Keelty review, there is the CFS commissioner's independent review into its response to the bushfires on the island during 2019-20. That full report was placed in the public realm on Monday 22 March this year and it is found on the CFS website. It is comprehensive and it is of an independent nature. It is evidenced through observations and there were surveys. There were face-to-face engagements. Of course, there were challenges with that, member for Mawson. I am not discrediting that for a second, but they did front up. There was face-to-face engagement. There were group sessions and consideration of the lessons from the 2007 island fires and the Keelty review.

The inherent arms-length nature of this report and the Keelty review continue to underscore the recognition deserving of volunteers, staff, farm firefighter units—we could not do it without them—and so many other crucial entities in responding to fires—and/or involved in recovery management on Kangaroo Island and other parts of the state.

I know that the human and emotional elements of this fire are enormous on volunteers and on the community and that has been front of mind. It has been front of mind for the CFS and they have engaged with volunteers and the community over a number of days on the island to create further openness to the review and also garner insights and concerns. As I said, for the first time ever there is a dedicated CFS resource on the island.

The report describes the fire chronology and it provides critical analysis of nine different pillars of the operations and nine comprehensive recommendations. I am paraphrasing these here, but if I can just elaborate a little bit. One recommendation is to review the doctrinal environment that governs level three incidents, for example. Another is to look at government policy to formally recognise the CFS as the lead agency—

Mr ODENWALDER: A matter of clarification, sir: I understand the member for Mawson's commentary was broad, but now the minister is ranging far beyond even the member for Mawson's commentary and I ask him to either conclude his remarks or make them pertinent to the member for Mawson's comments.

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, sir: the opposition cannot have it both ways. They either stick to the standing orders, which do not allow for argument or opinion and expansive commentary, or they allow—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We keep listening to this—

Mr PEDERICK: Tell your mate.

Mr CREGAN: That is right. Inform your colleague not to object then.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I just did.

Mr CREGAN: Well, is he maintaining his objection, in which case if he is not I will withdraw mine.

Mr PEDERICK: If you do not want to hear about the good stuff, do not—

The CHAIR: Order! We will come back to the task at hand.

Mr CREGAN: Do you maintain your objection?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I do.

Mr PEDERICK: You cannot have it both ways. We speak as one, like Jack and Tom.

Mr ODENWALDER: I maintain that the minister should be brought back to addressing the member for Mawson's comments, if that is what he is doing.

Mr CREGAN: I think the member for Mawson needs to raise that point. In any case, you are hopelessly conflicted. What are we going to do—

Mr ODENWALDER: Any member of the committee can speak, member for Kavel. You might not be here next year to experience this.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The reason why I am not objecting is that I am going to show this video of 10 minutes of gobbledygook from the minister.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There is no reality with what is actually happening on Kangaroo Island.

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Mawson, you can stop there.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: And the people of Kangaroo Island deserve better than gobbledygook.

The CHAIR: Member for Mawson, you can stop there. I understand your passion for this particular issue. Believe me, I understand it. You have spoken about the Kangaroo Island fires on many occasions in this place. Today, you took another opportunity to put your point of view across and that has been heard. The minister is responding. I am also aware, minister, that we are 25 minutes into an hour session, so I would ask you to come back and conclude your answer.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you for your wisdom, Mr Chair. There is a report that describes the fire chronology and provides critical analysis. There are nine different areas of CFS operations, with nine comprehensive recommendations: things like the CFS increasing its safety footprint; things like the CFS using the learnings from the review, along with those lessons identified in 2007 to develop a state KI operations management plan; looking at non-vocational training opportunities; looking at things like ICs, DICs, and operations and planning officers being invited to an annual aviation preparation exercise day; things like all level 2 and 3 logistics officers being provided training and a statement of expectations annually.

The CFS accepts all recommendations and they will be addressed in some form. I also note the ongoing continuous improvement program and the Keelty review, which has seen significant improvement advances in a number of areas—better interactions between command levels within CFS with notable improvement outcomes. Safety has to be a non-negotiable aspect of CFS business and the implementation of AVL.

AVL has been out since 2012 and did this government spend a single cent on AVL for the CFS? Not one drop, not one iota, not one cent. We are getting on with the job. It is about continuous improvement, achieving greater community outcomes and collaboration with respect to groups like the farm firefighter units and there are a number of improvement measures already commencing.

The CHAIR: That probably is a good point to wrap up on, minister. I just make one further comment to the committee members. Interjections and chatter across the chamber are out of order, as you well know. If you are looking to partake in that, you are really just eating into the committee's time. Thank you, minister. Are there further questions? We are still on CFS. Member for Elizabeth?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am not going to ask any more questions after answers like that.

The CHAIR: The member for Mawson is called to order.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would like to move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, highlights. The reason for my haste, member for Kavel, is that I want to talk about your area a little bit. In the highlights, it references programs to address key findings of the royal commission.

The royal commission, as you know, identified a clear need for Australia to establish its own sovereign aerial firefighter fleet. It goes on to make several recommendations about large aerial tankers and very large aerial tankers being owned and used by the Australian government and coordinated by the Australian government. The Liberal government in Canberra has refused to accept this recommendation. I wonder if the state government has put any pressure on their federal counterparts to adopt this recommendation, given how important aerial firefighting is in South Australia.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I am advised that NAFC is considering a live tender as we speak, so I will proceed with caution around some aspects of this subject, as the member for Elizabeth can appreciate. In terms of aerial firefighting and an overview of 2021, if I look at the past and at the various members around the chamber and the areas they represent, we have certainly been served very well by an aerial firefighting capability capacity. We could not—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We just could not do it without this capability. Firefighting aircraft were procured through NAFC, the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, for the 2020-21 fire danger season. This was the final year of a three-year plus one-plus-one contract. The CFS sought and received from government forward funding for a revised aircraft fleet from 2018-19 to 2022-23 and that enabled the establishment of various aspects right across the state.

Planning and training for reaccreditation of staff and volunteer aerial firefighting crew and airbase aircraft loading crew are now underway. In the past, there were 26 aircraft that were contracted. We had fixed single engine air tankers. There was a high-volume helicopter, three fixed-wing surveillance aircraft and also eight rotary-wing air attack observation platforms. That service period for a number of aircraft was extended due to residual bushfire risk. Aircraft also remained available beyond the exclusive use period through the contracts 'call when needed' arrangements.

In the past, this has been like a contractual condition whereby the CFS is able to engage fixed-wing bombing and surveillance aircraft within 12 hours' notice outside of what is usually the contracted 84-day period when we have late seasons. But during 2020-21, during that fire danger season, firefighting aircraft flew a total of—

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, while the minister is conferring, can I ask that you bring him back to the question itself, which was: has the government put any pressure on the federal government to adopt this recommendation of the royal commission?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Elizabeth. I am sure the minister is getting to that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The firefighting aircraft flew a total of just over 850 hours—660 operational, 112 relocation, 77 training—and they completed over 700 bombing missions and delivered two million litres of suppressants and retardants. They continue to be a valuable firefighting resource but, of course, they do not replace firefighters on the ground. They obviously complement them.

In terms of working with the federal government, we work collaboratively with the federal government. We work in a cooperative manner with the federal government. We were involved in a number of meetings this year—they have been by phone because of the COVID situation—whereby ministers from right around the country of all political colours, red and blue, worked together in a collaborative manner, not a combative manner. We continue to look at those findings.

I am quite satisfied that at the moment we are served well by our Country Fire Service, and the great work they do, and well represented at NAFC. I think our contribution is just over $10 million. In the past, we have chipped in over $10 million in those recent seasons and we are served very well, and our aerial capability has served the state very well in the past. That said, it is always about continuous improvement, and we will continue to work with other states and territories on this subject.

The CHAIR: I am going to the member for Kavel, who has a question.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you, sir. Minister, can I take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 71. Can the minister provide an update on the progress of actions taken against the recommendations made in the 2019-20 independent bushfire review?

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, sir: the minister has been traversing for the last 25 minutes the response to the recommendations of the Keelty review.

Mr CREGAN: Well, I am asking a specific question in relation to the actions taken in an orderly way.

The CHAIR: Yes, and thank you—

Mr CREGAN: I am entitled to ask that question. It is important to my community—

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel—

Mr CREGAN: —and I will not be lectured by you or any other member on whether it is important or not.

The CHAIR: The member for Kavel is called to order. The member for Elizabeth has called a point of order, and I am ruling that out of order. I am allowing the member for Kavel's question because it is an important question, and he, like others, has experienced a bushfire disaster in the electorates he represents. However, I am going to suggest to the member for Kavel that he just be conscious of not engaging in interjections across the chamber because all it is doing is eating into the committee's time and not allowing the minister appropriate time to answer your very important question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the member for Kavel for his very important question. Recently, I was able to deliver a new fire truck to the Mount Barker MFS station. That was a fantastic morning. Following the devastation of the 2019-20 bushfire season, the South Australian government did commission an independent review into the state's response to the fires. It was commissioned by Australian former Federal Police Commissioner Mr Mick Keelty. There were 68 findings and 15 recommendations, and in response to the review we announced a $97.5 million package that included 69 action items to implement the recommendations of the review.

In carefully considering the recommendations of the review and developing the action items, we identified 27 measures to prioritise, with the remaining 42 measures to be implemented over the longer term. I am very pleased to inform the house that all 27 action items from our immediate response have been delivered. That is 27 action items that deliver new appliances, new equipment for our emergency services personnel, improved protection for critical assets, a boost in communications and technology for our emergency services and improved information available to South Australians before and during bushfires.

We committed to delivering 25 new trucks to CFS units across the state for the 2020-21 bushfire season. I am pleased to say that we delivered on that promise, just as we delivered on our commitment to retrofit many CFS appliances with burnover protection systems ahead of the last bushfire season. That was an important action to improve the safety of our dedicated volunteer firefighters on the ground.

We also delivered $11½ million to deliver new state-of-the-art appliances to MFS stations right across the state. Earlier this month, new appliances were delivered to the Mount Barker MFS and also Seaford MFS stations, as I just pointed out. We are expecting the next pair of appliances to be delivered in the coming weeks, which is very exciting.

We have committed more than $68 million in additional new funding to the MFS since coming to government to ensure that MFS personnel have not just the capability they need to keep the state safe but also the protection they need to stay safe themselves. So good progress has been made on the longer term action items, with nine having been already completed. We will continue to work hard and deliver the remaining items.

I thank staff and volunteers right across our emergency services agencies for their hard work. I also want to thank the member for Kavel for being the wonderful advocate he is for local community.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, I am conscious of the time—

Mr ODENWALDER: Indeed. I would like to talk to the SES if I could.

The CHAIR: Go to the SES?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, and if there is time I want to ask a question about the member for Kavel's electorate, his soon to be abandoned electorate.

The CHAIR: Well, it is not being abandoned.

Mr CREGAN: It is not being abandoned. You can withdraw that. I take offence.

The CHAIR: Yes, I concur. That was inappropriate.

Mr CREGAN: It has never been abandoned since I have been a member—

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Kavel.

Mr CREGAN: —or before I have been a member, and it will not be afterwards.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Kavel. I will deal with this.

Mr ODENWALDER: Before? Are you sure?

The CHAIR: I will deal with this. The member for Elizabeth insinuated that the electorate of Kavel was soon to be abandoned.

Mr ODENWALDER: By the member for Kavel.

The CHAIR: No, you did not say that.

Mr ODENWALDER: I beg your pardon. I am happy to—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, listen to me.

Mr CREGAN: Are you withdrawing, or just—

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel, I am dealing with this. The member for Kavel has taken offence to the comment from the member for Elizabeth, and I am going to ask him to withdraw.

Mr ODENWALDER: I withdraw, sir.

The CHAIR: Thank you. That didn't take long.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would like to go to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 32, regarding the SES and regarding the volunteer recruitment and retention program. Minister, is there a particular problem with retention and recruitment within the SES that does not exist within other emergency services organisations like the CFS and Surf Life Saving SA? Can you quantify that in any way?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The SES serve in a wide range of roles, and they have certainly been tested this year—they have even been helping South Australia Police with COVID-related duties—and they do an absolutely amazing job. They are a multifunctional organisation that performs a range of activities. When they are not helping with floods, they could be helping with car accidents, with sandbagging, with all manner of volunteering roles.

Volunteering has some challenges right across the board in a whole range of volunteer organisations. There are a number of challenges in trying to recruit, engage and retain volunteers, so I would say it would be consistent. That is why it is important we as a government continue to invest in our SES, to make sure we do what we can to retain existing volunteers, keep them engaged but also recruit more volunteers.

I would not necessarily say it would be specific to the SES, but if the member is getting to why we are giving the money to the SES and not to other organisations, the answer to that is that it is an excellent budget program, and I understand this particular budget bid was knocked back time and time again. We are supporting our SES to continue to build their capability for what will ultimately result in a stronger and safer South Australia, but we have to continue to support our emergency services volunteers right across the spectrum.

Mr ODENWALDER: There was a media announcement of this program on 26 June, before the budget. Who organised the media announcement: your office or the SES?

Mr CREGAN: How is that possibly relevant? Which budget item does that relate to?

Mr ODENWALDER: It is relevant. There was an announcement about the spending of nearly a million dollars.

The CHAIR: I will accept the question. Whether the minister is able to answer or not is up to him.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will take that on notice. I do not think I have taken any on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: You do not know who organised it?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The offices continually work together, but I will take that on notice. I do not have the information furnished in front of me.

The CHAIR: The minister has said he will take it on notice, so we will go the next question.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did the minister approve the invitation of Mr Graham Reynolds, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wright, to the announcement?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: which budget item does this relate to?

Mr ODENWALDER: It relates directly to the Budget Measures Statement. It relates to the announcement of the New Pathways: Volunteering Recruitment and Retention program, which costs a million dollars a year.

Mr Cregan interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: We are both such reserved people.

The CHAIR: That is right; it is the quiet ones you have to watch. Just before you answer, minister, I am going to ask the member for Elizabeth to articulate the budget line slowly and clearly for my country ear.

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget Measures Statement on page 32. It is a budget measure.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The CHAIR: The nice thing about having to wear masks in the committee is that interjections are muffled.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Sometimes the questions are muffled without the masks, sir.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am asking if the minister approved the invitation of Graham Reynolds, who is the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wright.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have just checked what I can at my end and it is not something that I was actually involved in. I was not involved in the guest list of that particular event.

Mr ODENWALDER: Who invited Mr Graham Reynolds, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wright?

The CHAIR: I think it is a very tenuous link to the budget. You are asking very specific questions about an invitation list.

Mr ODENWALDER: We are talking about $4.4 million in taxpayer money being announced before the budget. A candidate who is not even—

The CHAIR: I understand that, member for Elizabeth, but you have asked a very specific question about an invitation to an individual, who I am sure was one of many at this particular event.

Mr ODENWALDER: Indeed, and I will get to that; that is right. Can I continue with my questioning on that line?

The CHAIR: Let's see how we go.

Mr ODENWALDER: Because we understand the Chief Officer of the SES was there.

The CHAIR: That is a good thing.

Mr ODENWALDER: Do you think it is acceptable, minister, that non-elected political candidates, not MPs—I do not have a problem with other MPs being there, although I do note the member for Wright himself was not invited—stand behind heads of government departments to announce budget measures?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: this clearly does not relate to any immediate budget line.

The CHAIR: I uphold that point of order. In fact, you are straying from the intent of the committee, in my view. Member for Elizabeth, let's go back to the budget and forget about invitation lists.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 88, which is ministerial responsibilities. How often do you meet with the Chief Officer of the SES?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: again, Mr Chair, this does not relate specifically to a budget line. It might be a good question for question time, but it does not relate—

Mr ODENWALDER: Presumably the minister does have some responsibilities.

The CHAIR: In fact, I am going to allow that question because similar questions have been asked in this committee previously of other ministers. It is reasonable.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Volume 2, page 88?

Mr ODENWALDER: Ministerial responsibilities, yes. It is a simple line. It just says you are responsible for the SES.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you have asked the question and I have allowed it. We will cease the commentary.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: How often do I meet with the chief officer is the question?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I meet with all the chief officers on a regular basis. We obviously have a structured process, but we meet regularly every fortnight at a minimum but often more often if the need arises.

Mr ODENWALDER: Does your Chief of Staff attend these meetings with all these chief officers?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Usually the Chief of Staff would attend—usually.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are you aware if the previous minister had similarly regularly scheduled meetings with chiefs of staff, and if his Chief of Staff also attended?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Bearing in mind, of course, that the current minister is not responsible at all for the actions of the previous minister.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Absolutely not responsible.

Mr CREGAN: And that is the point of order I maintain, sir.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just asking if the minister is aware of the situation.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: With all respect, I am not responsible for the former minister.

The CHAIR: Your question was still in relation to a previous minister, so we will move on.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, when you took over the emergency services portfolio, which was a year yesterday I understand, were any allegations or complaints raised with you about bullying or intimidation by the former minister and/or his staff?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: which budget line item does this relate to?

Mr ODENWALDER: It is about your responsibilities to your staff.

Mr CREGAN: I have not finished addressing the Chair.

The CHAIR: You have a point of order, member for Kavel.

Mr CREGAN: I do, sir, and that is that this does not relate specifically to a budget line item. Once again, it might be a good question for question time, if there are ever any good questions from this particular member in question time. I will leave that to other members to judge, but can I say that I maintain my point of order.

The CHAIR: I do uphold the point of order. Member for Elizabeth, you are asking questions of the current minister about a previous minister and their office. I understand where you are going with this. We are all aware of the media reports of the last couple of days—I understand that—and you are trying to build on that story, I guess. As I said earlier, I do not believe this minister is responsible in any way for the operation or actions of the previous minister in this portfolio.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, but my question was about any allegations or complaints raised with the current minister about any treatment of his staff or departmental staff by the former minister and his staff, whether any allegations were brought to him as minister.

Mr CREGAN: I maintain my point of order.

The CHAIR: Which is, member for Kavel?

Mr CREGAN: That this does not relate in any real way—

Mr ODENWALDER: To his ministerial responsibilities?

Mr CREGAN: —to a present budget line item on which this minister can be examined. To my earlier point, there might be a question in question time, perhaps not from this member, but there might be, and it could be put in that forum.

The CHAIR: Let me ask again of the member for Elizabeth: which specific budget reference?

Mr ODENWALDER: It is in reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 88, ministerial responsibilities. The minister is responsible for the overall oversight of the SES, and I am asking him, when he took over the portfolio, were any allegations raised with him about the previous minister and his staff's conduct toward his staff or departmental staff?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

The CHAIR: There we go.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 68, which is about the SAFECOM workforce. Last year, we passed some important legislation, as the minister has alluded to, which effectively separated the role of the SAFECOM chief executive from the chair of the SAFECOM Board, which we supported. Subsequently, Mr Dominic Lane terminated his contract as the chief executive, and we saw the appointment of Julia Waddington-Powell, but I understand there is still an acting CE. When does Ms Waddington-Powell take up the position?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I am advised Ms Waddington-Powell starts on Monday 2 August.

Mr ODENWALDER: Why did Mr Lane terminate his contract?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will begin by saying that Dominic Lane served in an excellent manner. He is a proven person in the emergency services sector. He was originally from New South Wales and he relocated to South Australia, and he did an exceptional job steering the organisation through a period of a number of challenges.

I am advised that Mr Lane resigned in April to take up a new executive position in the New South Wales government. He now leads the Operational Management and Partnerships Division of Resilience, New South Wales. To be honest, he will be sadly missed because he was absolutely exceptional. However, we understand that he wanted to relocate back to New South Wales with his family, and I have no doubt that he will continue to serve in the emergency services sector with distinction.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did Mr Lane ever express any misgivings or opposition to the new structure as outlined in the legislation passed here?

Mr CREGAN: I object to this question on the basis that it calls for a reflection on a vote of the house—the legislation—not even by the member present but by somebody else who now does not even work for the government in South Australia.

Mr ODENWALDER: The minister referred to legislation throughout his opening statement and has referred to it constantly.

The CHAIR: I do not agree, member for Kavel, that it does reflect—

Mr ODENWALDER: And the vote has been done. The bill has been passed?

The CHAIR: It is not before the house.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is right.

The CHAIR: It has been passed. I do not believe that the question did reflect on the vote of the house: it was in relation to the former chief executive.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Did he have any opposition? No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did any of the chiefs of agencies ever express any misgivings or opposition to the new structure?

Mr CREGAN: Which chiefs of agencies?

Mr ODENWALDER: The emergency services agencies, presumably. No?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not that I call, no.

Mr ODENWALDER: Not that you recall—no misgivings, no problems with the new structure?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr CREGAN: Objection: 128, repetition. He has already answered the question.

Mr ODENWALDER: You can see why he is going back to the law, sir.

The CHAIR: I think that we will let that one go through to the keeper. The minister has answered no to two previous questions; am I correct minister?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not count, sir. I just focus on the one in front of me here. You are no doubt diligently counting them, but I am happy to take another question, sir.

The CHAIR: Excellent, I am glad you are.

Mr ODENWALDER: Suits us all. Did any of the chiefs of emergency services agencies ever express any misgivings about the leadership style of the previous chief executive either in his role as chief executive or as chair of the SAFECOM Board?

Mr CREGAN: I object, sir, I just cannot see which budget line item this relates to.

Mr ODENWALDER: He was a member of the SAFECOM workforce.

Mr CREGAN: That is very remote and tenuous. Which budget line item?

The CHAIR: It is very tenuous. In fact, the question as it was posed was to the minister, but in fact it could be taken far more generally, that is: was there any complaint or concern to anybody? I do not think it was very specific at all. Member for Elizabeth, we have time for one last probing question on the budget.

Mr ODENWALDER: I like to stick firmly to the budget, sir. One question, it is so hard to choose which question. I refer to the Budget Measures Statement, page 33, the Willaston SES unit. Was the minister aware of the advocacy of the member for Light for an SES unit based at Willaston, and was this a factor in the decision for the government to announce this new facility in Willaston?

Mr CREGAN: Perhaps the member can assist me with a budget line item here?

Mr ODENWALDER: Page 33 of the Budget Measures Statement.

The CHAIR: Certainly, on page 33 there is quite specific mention of the Willaston SES unit. Minister, the question is: were you aware of the member for Light's advocacy? Correct?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, that is right, and did the member for Light's advocacy prompt this announcement.

The CHAIR: Prompt?

Mr ODENWALDER: Prompt, or did it play any role in the announcement? Would the government have announced a Willaston SES station independent of the knowledge that the member for Light had been advocating for it for at least two years?

Mr CREGAN: I think that is your third attempt at putting that question.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a clarification.

The CHAIR: Any—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! We have soaked up far too much time in this committee on argy-bargy and probably, member for Elizabeth, you have not got through all the questions you wanted to as a result. My comment to that would be that the role of any MP—

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel! If I have to call you all to order again I am going to warn you. My comment in relation to that question is that any good member of parliament will advocate for their electorate to the government.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: All I will say is that funding has been provided to the SES and CFS for the development of a concept plan for a joint facility at Willaston. A total of $100,000 has been allocated, with $80,000 provided to the CFS and $20,000 to the SES. I would say that Willaston is a beautiful part of the world, and I would say that it would have the bipartisan support of all parties for improvements in the emergency services in that part of the world.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for SAFECOM, the CFS, the MFS and the SES, and Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance complete.

Sitting suspended from 10:31 to 10:45.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr G. Stevens, Commissioner of Police.

Mr B. Cagialis, Head of Finance and Procurement, South Australia Police.

Mr S. Johinke, Director, Business Service, South Australia Police.

Mr S. Watkins, Governance and Capability Service, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to Estimates Committee A. The portfolio we will be examining in this session is South Australia Police. The minister appearing is the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. I advise that the proposed payments for South Australia Police remain open for examination and call on the minister to introduce his advisers and make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning, members. Of course, I acknowledge a man who needs no introduction to my left, Commissioner Grant Stevens, the Commissioner of Police. On the second table is Mr Steve Johinke, Director, Business Service, South Australia Police, and also Bill Cagialis, Head of Finance and Procurement at SAPOL. In the third row, we also have Superintendent Simon Watkins, Governance and Capability Service at SAPOL.

Consistent with my earlier approach, I have a brief opening statement. I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone at SAPOL from the commissioner down for their extraordinary work over the last 12 months and indeed since March 2020. Not only have they had up to 600 officers dedicated to COVID-19 operations each day but they have continued to work around the clock to protect our community as much as possible from COVID-19, and non-COVID duties have also continued. I think we can all agree that the results SAPOL have achieved have been outstanding.

This budget takes our government's commitment to $98.9 million over the forward estimates towards managing the state's response to COVID-19, including costs related to border patrols, medi-hotel security, cross-border travel authorisations and also compliance activities. This includes funding for 72 extra police officers and 168 additional protective security officers to work in our medi-hotels. The funding also supports the employment of SES volunteers for broader COVID-related activities.

Importantly, as pressing as the pandemic has been, as a government we are also ensuring that we have invested in initiatives to bolster SAPOL's traditional policing capabilities, investing $21.1 million over three years to complete the implementation of stages 3 and 4 of the Shield project, the primary SAPOL information, data and records management system linking directly with other justice sector agencies, to improve collaboration and also data sharing capabilities. This investment also builds on the $34.9 million we announced last year for the mobile workforce transformation project, which will deliver SAPOL personnel with the tools and resources they need to police in the modern world.

I will not take up any more time with my opening statement, but I would also like to place on the record again my sincere thanks to all our SAPOL personnel, in particular the commissioner for his stellar leadership of SAPOL during what has been a very challenging time.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Elizabeth wish to make an opening statement?

Mr ODENWALDER: Very briefly, and I want to echo the minister's comments about the commissioner and SAPOL during the COVID response. I am sure you are sick of platitudes by now, but it is true that we are very lucky in this state to be served by SAPOL and with you as the head. I do not think you would want to be anywhere else.

My office, as you probably know, is a sort of lightning rod for people who from time to time complain about the police or police activities, but I can safely say that I do not think I have heard any complaints through my office about the COVID response particularly or about anyone affected by the COVID response in terms of the way the police have behaved, so I do want to commend both SAPOL and the commissioner for their work.

I will start with COVID and refer to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 69. This is funding essentially to extend the employment of 54 PSOs and an additional 114 PSOs specifically to deal with COVID. How long is the training period for these recruits and how long are their individual contracts?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. As the member points out, a number of extra recruits have been enabled. I am informed that training goes for nine weeks, contracts go for 12 months and then in addition to that there is nine-week training.

Mr ODENWALDER: What is the timetable for recruitment? When will the first of this 114 begin actual work and when will the last of the 114 finish their 12-month contract?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The supplementary resourcing plan had included temporary replacement of 28 protective security officers within government establishments. That measure has concluded. PSOs have resumed their former responsibilities. So, in terms of the 54, the additional 54 PSOs were also to be recruited to support COVID operations and maintain the protective security capability of SAPOL.

The last of the additional 54 PSOs completed their training and graduated on 28 May 2021. A further commitment to recruit an additional 72 sworn recruits was also undertaken and now that has also been fulfilled. A course of 24 sworn recruits commenced on 25 March 2021, and that accounts for the finalisation of that additional 72 sworn officers.

Mr ODENWALDER: There are 114 PSOs in the pipeline. When will the last one of those finish their contract, assuming they all serve a 12-month contract?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We have two courses to finish to complete that commitment and, that will depend on timing and resources, but September and November are when those contracts will start.

Mr ODENWALDER: Of the first courses? I am wondering at what point will this PSO complement end, assuming it is all 12-month contracts.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: All of those, after their nine-week courses, will be out by Christmas, trained by Christmas.

Mr ODENWALDER: This year. So the complement will end at Christmas next year, seeing they only serve a 12-month contract. Presumably, that is the completion.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: All subject to timing, resources and I suppose the dynamic environment that we are in. Obviously, as a government, we will continue to work closely with SAPOL and provide whatever support we need to.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will these new PSOs have any duties beyond medi-hotels?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. They could potentially be used in a whole variety of different roles. They are obviously trained in a multidiscipline capacity. They are trained as PSOs, so they could also be utilised for other jobs as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will they be used, for instance, at border security or be involved in any compliance, whether it is business compliance or patrolling?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Although SA Health took over compliance duties from 1 July, obviously SAPOL continues to support with operational requirements. We have committed those 168 PSOs to COVID duties. They could also be involved in assisting at medi-hotels and also borders as operational requirements determine.

Mr ODENWALDER: The current PSOs, including the recently graduated PSOs, are they all fully vaccinated against COVID-19?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. Although I do not think there is a budget reference, I will answer it in good faith. In terms of vaccinations and the status of COVID vaccinations for SAPOL, in the week commencing 12 April SAPOL commenced a COVID-19 vaccination program in conjunction with SA Health. SAPOL's COVID-19 vaccination program has evolved to accommodate the changes implemented by SA Health.

SAPOL members have been offered vaccinations through the online booking systems with local health networks—northern, southern and central—and the Wayville showgrounds and the newly established clinics (north and south). These options have been in addition to members attending their own private medical practitioners. Rural and remote SAPOL members have also been provided with various options for attending regional local health network clinics. In accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment recommendations, members are permitted to attend vaccination locations during work time.

Although COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory, regular reminders are scheduled to prompt members to also book in. SAPOL employees working in medi-hotels are required to be vaccinated with at least the first dose. If they decline to undertake vaccination, they are replaced. SAPOL employees have also been offered the influenza vaccine, which must be administered 14 days before/after the COVID-19 vaccine. The potential impact of this has also been factored into logistics and workplace planning.

Members are probably interested in some numbers. SAPOL is collaborating with SA Health regarding access to employee vaccination information and stats. Preliminary reporting as at 30 June indicates thus far that at that time 23 per cent of SAPOL staff are now fully vaccinated, having received two doses. Also, a certain number had received their first dose. Of course, it is much better than the broader community but obviously we continue to encourage people to get their vaccinations.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will the 114 PSOs provided for by this budget measure be required to be vaccinated against COVID?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. I am advised that members will only be deployed to sterile corridors or medi-hotels if they are vaccinated.

Mr ODENWALDER: It will not be a condition of employment for the new PSO recruits to be fully vaccinated at the time of their appointment as recruits or by the time they leave the academy?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is a condition of their employment.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a condition of employment?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: So if they apply for a PSO position and they refuse to be vaccinated they will be discarded as a potential recruit?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that they would not come into that process unless they were prepared to be vaccinated because they know the sort of work that they will be undertaking.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will future intakes of sworn police recruits be required to vaccinate or is it the same conditions as you previously outlined for current police?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. I am advised there has been no change to the overall recruiting requirements.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, are you satisfied that everything is being done to prevent the transmission to police officers or PSOs posted to quarantine hotels?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What page—

Mr ODENWALDER: Is there more that you think could be done?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What budget line are we talking about?

Mr ODENWALDER: I am talking about COVID-19 resources; I am talking about the Budget Measures Statement, page 69.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In response to the question, am I satisfied, yes, I am satisfied that all that can be done is being done. Obviously, it goes without saying that South Australia Police is an acclaimed world-leading law enforcement agency. There are very strict processes in place. There are often refresher courses. PPE is specific and targeted and some of the best. There continues to be wide supervision, continuing improvements—and, yes, I am certainly satisfied. That said, we will continue as a government to work with SAPOL and provide whatever resources need to be provided if they are requested in relation to better protection.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it your advice from your agency that the current hotel quarantine system is the best and safest quarantine available?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think that is more of an SA Health question, but what I will say is that I am certainly satisfied it is being strictly managed. I think it is the best option available in South Australia at the moment, and it is doing so well because of the fundamentally important role that SAPOL is playing in this regard.

Mr ODENWALDER: Have you received any advice that that system could be improved, that there are better and safer quarantine options possible?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: With all respect, I have not, but that is a matter for SA Health.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 204, Program 3, Sub-program 2.1: Activity Indicators, talking about detections of drug driving, detections of drink-driving, number of expiation notices and so on. Minister, how many letters do you receive from MPs about traffic issues in their electorates that you are asked to investigate? I appreciate you may have to take that particular one on notice.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I can say is that I went from being the one who wrote a lot of letters to having to respond to a lot of letters. I will just see if I have any figures on that. Would you like to clarify a time period at all, like last year or—

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, last financial year. I am happy if you want to take that one on notice; I am not asking for a specific number.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will take that one on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you expand on the process that goes on when you receive those letters? Do you always pass those letters on to SAPOL on every occasion?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I would say it would be consistent with the practice when former ministers have been in this role in terms of the actual logistics, the chain of command and the process. Again, I can take that question on notice and come back to the member with specifics as to exactly who touches the letter, when, who receives it, all of that. I can give you specifics on that, but I am advised that my office's process is to refer it to SAPOL, and there is a process from there.

Mr ODENWALDER: Who in SAPOL are these letters referred to in the first instance? You do not need to name them.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We would refer them to the commissioner's office.

Mr ODENWALDER: What is your understanding of what SAPOL does with those letters?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It would depend on the nature of them, but I would say they are diligently managed, referred to a relevant manager and, depending on the detail, a response would be formulated.

Mr ODENWALDER: So your understanding is that they are passed on through a sort of management line to the relevant section, presumably mostly Traffic. Is that your understanding?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That is what I am advised. Obviously it depends on the nature, but initially we would send something to the commissioner's office and, depending on its nature, it would be delegated to the relevant manager, detail would be provided, and then a suitable response would be formulated from there.

Mr ODENWALDER: Would a letter from an MP go anywhere else other than SAPOL from your office?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Are you asking if a letter was sent to my office?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes. If a letter is sent to your office, is there a process by which it would go anywhere else other than to SAPOL, to the commissioner's office, from your office? I am referring particularly to traffic matters.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It would just depend on the nature of the letter. It just depends on what was contained in it. Could you be a bit more specific?

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, I will try. I am asking you—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The process would be consistent with what has been done in the past. There has been no deviation from any other policy.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have never been lucky enough to be the Minister for Police, so bear with me. You say that a letter regarding a local traffic matter from an MP would go to SAPOL, and I understand that. Would there be an occasion when it would go anywhere else other than to SAPOL from your office?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Again, what I would be happy to do is take on notice the process by which the letters are responded to. I think that would go a long way to answering all these hypothetical questions, which I think they are. The process would be consistent with former undertakings. My office's process is to refer a matter like that to SAPOL. Of course, it would depend on the nature of the allegation and that sort of thing, but usually they would send it, I am informed, to the relevant manager, details would be obtained and a response would be formulated.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, do you have a specific example in mind?

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not, but there are some questions from the member for Badcoe, I believe.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I try to hand sign them, too, because I do try to give members that respect. I look at the final letters and I try to hand sign them, especially the member for Elizabeth's.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 204, following on from my colleague's same budget line. As the member for Badcoe, I sent you a letter, dated 28 June 2021, on behalf of a North Plympton constituent about that person's concerns that local traffic laws in his street were not being complied with. I will now hand up a copy for your information.

The CHAIR: These can be circulated, I understand.

Ms STINSON: Yes, I understand that they are not tabled as such but can be provided. I might provide you a second for the commissioner. I might just note that I understand that these are not tabled and therefore do not become part of the official record, but if for some reason they do I would appreciate if the personal details of the constituent were removed before being released to the public at all. I have included them to aid the minister in tracking down the letter. My question, minister, is: can you tell me what you did with this letter?

The CHAIR: Just for clarification, member for Badcoe, this particular paper will not be circulated beyond the committee today.

Ms STINSON: That is my understanding of the process of this committee; however, if it were to be circulated further, I would ask that the private details are not disclosed.

The CHAIR: I understand that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I can confirm for the member for Badcoe that I have the letter in front of me whereby the member for Badcoe has written on behalf of a constituent about a traffic matter in a suburb that I believe is in her electorate. This certainly has been written to the relevant address and is in my portfolio area.

Obviously, the member for Badcoe could have furnished me with this letter, say, yesterday, the day before or the day before that and I would have been able to prepare an answer. Since it is a question without notice, what I would say is that it depends on the type of information contained in the letter. What would happen is that would be referred to South Australia Police, who would usually refer that sort of letter to a relevant manager.

Detail would be obtained in regard to it, and I may or may not have already responded to that. But I am sure that, given the time, if a response has not been prepared back to the member for Badcoe, it is imminent. I have been subsequently informed that I signed by hand a response earlier this morning on this exact matter.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, I appreciate that. I have no complaint with the speed of your office, I have to say. You always respond to my letters quite promptly.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We do try.

Ms STINSON: For the sake of completeness, I can confirm that you sent me an acknowledgment letter on 5 July, but thus far I have not received a substantive response. Could you possibly run me through who in your office would have handled the letter or any further detail about the handling in your office of this letter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Again, I would say that a response to this letter, broadly speaking, would be entirely consistent with other letters that are written in regard to traffic. It would depend on the nature of the letter, but we would send these letters to SAPOL for their consideration. They would then send it off to a relevant manager, depending on the type of concern that was raised, and then detail would have to be obtained in relation to that letter.

For example, it has just been brought to my attention in relation to the letter at hand that SAPOL would usually obtain some detail, and this would be operational detail. In this particular case, I am advised that a senior member of SAPOL actually contacted the gentleman to discuss their concerns. I will not mention names to respect the anonymity of the constituent, but I am informed that the resident at that stage did appear pleased with that contact that was made by police.

I am also advised that in the first week of July members of the road policing section actually attended at this location on multiple occasions—I think six occasions. As a result, 64 expiations were issued for disobeying the no left turn sign, and of those 12 were actually heavy vehicles. I am also informed that the road policing section will continue to monitor and police that location to prevent and detect any unlawful driving behaviour.

So it seems to have been quite a thorough response by the road policing section. From all accounts that I have, I would have subsequently signed a reply, I would have done it by hand and the member for Badcoe will be able to receive that correspondence and send it to her constituent.

Ms STINSON: I do appreciate the information you have just provided, but the question I asked was around who in your office—and I do not need their name obviously—would have handled this letter and what they would have done with it. I would appreciate if you could provide any information about what advice or recommendations might have gone from your office to the police about actions in relations to this letter.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I will do with all these specific questions is answer them in the way I have been consistently answering them by saying that with any sort of MP to MP contact regarding, say, traffic infringements like this one here, it would depend on the nature of the comments, but it would be sent to SAPOL, who would then send it to a relevant manager. They would obtain operational detail, as they have in this particular situation here, a response would be formulated, I would sign that response if I was satisfied with it and it would be sent to the MP. When I answer the other question for the member for Elizabeth, hopefully that will shed light on the question the member for Badcoe has.

Ms STINSON: To be a little bit more specific, do you recall or are you aware of any conversations that you or any of your staff have had with police about action that should be taken in relation to the letter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I said, obviously actions arising from this letter would be highly operational in terms of day-to-day policing duty. I would be a very brave minister to tell the commissioner what to do operationally—because he needs no help from me, let me tell you.

From an operational point of view, police would handle that response. In terms of an MP writing to me, my aim is to provide an extensive and thorough response that action is seen to and that the member of parliament—whichever member of parliament of whatever persuasion—get the information they can use to then respond to their constituent, and I would do that in a bipartisan way.

Ms STINSON: Minister, can you explain how this letter ended up in the hands of at least one police officer, was photocopied numerous times and handed out to members of the public on the streets of North Plympton, in my electorate, on up to six separate occasions on 7, 8 and 9 July?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not sure how this actually relates to a budget line now. I have no information in front of me to suggest how that may or may not have occurred. What I would say is that if what is stemming from this is some sort of complaint, then I would say that SAPOL does have formal complaint processes and mechanisms in place to make sure that there would be an unbiased and objective view of the complaint. However, I have no information in front of me about that matter.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I might just say that it has been a little bit like drawing teeth.

Ms STINSON: I am getting quite directly to the point now, sir.

The CHAIR: I gather that.

Ms STINSON: My next question is: is it usual that a police officer would tell motorists, when pulling them over and getting them out of their cars and fining them, that if they have a problem with their fine they can 'blame this MP' and hand them a copy of a private constituent letter that I wrote to you with my details and image on it? Is that a usual practice?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Again, I am not sure how that relates to any—

The CHAIR: Minister, in your previous answer you referred to the Police Complaints Authority. Far be it from me to tell you how to respond to this letter, but—

Ms STINSON: Come on!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: This is a letter from a member of parliament under parliamentary privilege to a minister. This is a very serious allegation, a very serious matter, and it should be answered here today.

Ms STINSON: This is quite consistent with the budget line.

The CHAIR: The minister has been answering questions. As I said, it has been a bit like drawing teeth. I understand that both the member for Elizabeth and the member for Badcoe have been building a case—

Ms STINSON: Well, we are trying to get information.

The CHAIR: —and we have ultimately got to the point where the primary question has been asked.

Ms STINSON: With respect, sir, I do have some other rather pertinent questions to ask. I think it is entirely consistent with the budget line, and I would appreciate the opportunity to continue the question. I will do it as briefly as possible, sir.

The CHAIR: Just for the committee's reference, I am assuming that we are still on page 204 of Volume 3, targets 2020-21: 'Continue to target dangerous driving behaviours such as speeding, distraction, drink and drug driving.'

Ms STINSON: Yes, sir.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, sir. I thank the member for Badcoe for the question. If the member for Badcoe does have any complaint, and it sounds like this is of a complaint-type nature, then obviously there is a process in place to make any such complaints about police. I will take that as a complaint.

Ms STINSON: I am complaining about your activities. I wrote to you.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Badcoe! I missed your interjection, and the minister was halfway through answering your original question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Quite clearly this is a complaint, and it will be treated as a complaint accordingly. There is a process in place. If there is a complaint to be made, then the member for Badcoe should make it in accordance with the process that is set out about this matter or any other matter. If it is a matter of a complaint against police, then it should be dealt with in that fashion.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Point of order, sir. This is not a complaint against the police as much as it is a complaint against the minister and how a letter, under parliamentary privilege from a member of parliament on behalf of her constituent, goes to a minister of the Crown and then is dispersed. The minister has responsibility and he has responsibility to this house and to the people of South Australia to answer those questions in here today, and to do anything else just smells like rotten fish.

The CHAIR: I think the minister has answered each and every question in relation to this to the best of his ability. The assertion is that this letter was publicised in a public place and handed around. How that came about is unknown.

Ms STINSON: That is why I am asking about it.

The CHAIR: It is probably unknown to the minister—

Ms STINSON: He can take questions on notice.

The CHAIR: —and he is suggesting ways by which we can achieve answers to that. He may not have that answer today.

Ms STINSON: I understand that, sir.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There is nothing before me to suggest that there is absolutely anything that is out of the ordinary about this particular matter. It is entirely a matter for SAPOL. If the member for Badcoe does have a complaint, I would encourage her to abide by that complaints process. If she has any other information, I am more than happy to refer it to the commissioner's office for appropriate investigation, but I have nothing else in front of me about that particular issue. To my knowledge, there has been nothing but standard practice that has been applied in this instance. I do not have any other information in front of me about that matter.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 199. Can the minister advise how the government is supporting SAPOL's Crime and Criminal Justice Services program and how successful the program has been in the past 12 months?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I appreciate the member for Hammond's interest in law and order. It has been a real privilege to be able to attend several police stations in his particular electorate. As all of us here would know, over the past nearly 18 months there has been much focus on the outstanding work that SAPOL is doing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the apprehension of nearly 90 alleged offenders in early June as part of Operation Ironside may have come as a surprise to some.

However, throughout the pandemic the commissioner and his team have worked extremely hard to ensure that the more traditional policing activities and operations continue, and continue they have. On 7 June 2021, or Resolution Day as it was known, Operation Ironside culminated in SAPOL seizing 600 mobile phones, 80 of which have been identified as ANOM devices; 90 kilos of methylamphetamine; 354 kilos of cannabis; 45 litres of fantasy; 10,000 ecstasy pills; and 30 illegal firearms. Assets valued at over $11 million, including cars, boats and bank accounts, have also been seized.

Operation Ironside was initially launched in October 2018 by the Australian Federal Police, with SAPOL becoming involved in early 2020, focusing heavily on outlaw motorcycle gangs. I raise the successes of Operation Ironside not only to congratulate all the SAPOL personnel involved in the operation, particularly Assistant Commissioner Peter Harvey and Chief Superintendent Steve Taylor, but also to highlight the stellar results that a well-resourced police force can achieve.

Since coming to government, we have invested more than $270 million in additional funding for SAPOL, including $8½ million for new custom-made, state-of-the-art bullet and stab-resistant vests. There is a lot of excitement out there. Some of the SAPOL officers I have spoken to are looking forward to getting these because it is important that officers on the frontline, who execute operations like Ironside, can be as safe as possible.

Of course, we are the first ever South Australian government to invest directly in Crime Stoppers, with more than $800,000 in funding announced last year. Taking an average of over 2,000 calls per month in 2021, Crime Stoppers is a valuable partner of SAPOL and the information Crime Stoppers receives assists SAPOL to achieve some very impressive results. For example, in December 2020, information obtained by Crime Stoppers helped to locate a large-scale greenhouse cannabis crop, which contained 7,300 cannabis plants and also 330 kilos of dried cannabis.

Investments are targeted and they support SAPOL to deliver what are very tangible results. Indeed, offences against property have decreased during 2021 by 17.4 per cent, or just under 16½ thousand offences, compared with 2019-20. We will continue to build on these successes and invest in the tools and resources that SAPOL need to keep South Australia safe and strong.

The CHAIR: Before I call the member for Badcoe, I might speak to the matter of privilege. Ultimately, I would defer to the Speaker of course, but my understanding is that correspondence between MPs, in the broad, has privilege over it, and if there was a concern that privilege had been breached then that is a matter for the house itself to decide. It is all a matter of precedent and it has not, in this jurisdiction at least, been common for privilege to be raised over correspondence, but it has been so in other jurisdictions. I would remind members that privilege can be determined by the house as a whole if it deems necessary.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 204, the activity indicators. Given the minister's previous assurances that he will look into this matter and provide some sort of response to some of the questions raised already, does he acknowledge that a police officer issuing this type of letter to a constituent is completely inappropriate?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to my earlier statements. We have traversed this matter comprehensively and I said that if there is a complaint—

Mr ODENWALDER: Do you think it is inappropriate? It is a simple question. You are the police minister.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If there is a complaint, then it will be dealt with appropriately. Let's call it a complaint. If it is made, there will be an objective and impartial investigation into what, if anything, occurred.

Mr ODENWALDER: Into your office? Into what happened once the letter landed in your office?

The CHAIR: No, member for Elizabeth.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: This is now a hypothetical matter that has no relevance to any budget line.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is not a hypothetical matter; it is a letter that was sent to you.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! If I can speak now, member for Hammond. We have been on this particular topic for some time now. I think we have gone as far as we are going to go with it today. The minister is suggesting that there is an appropriate complaints process—I might be paraphrasing you here, minister—that can be used on this occasion; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Certainly. I have no additional information before me to speak to the matter, but we will certainly look into it, as we have pointed out.

Mr ODENWALDER: With respect, sir, may I speak to your ruling?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: You rightly point out that there are avenues to complain about actions of police officers. What we are questioning here is the minister and his handling of the letter. This letter was sent to him. It was not sent directly to the commissioner. It was sent to him, and the member for Badcoe is clearly trying to establish what happened once it left her office and arrived at his office and then what happened in the interim before it reached the police officer on the street. There are three stages to this, not just SAPOL.

The CHAIR: You have asked questions about all those stages today in this committee. You have asked about them. The minister has given some indication as to the process in his office and he has taken on notice that he will get back and clarify that process within his office; am I right?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Point of order: it is not up to the Chair to determine what questions we ask. I have sat in the ministerial chair and I have been subjected to lots of questions during estimates and you cop them and you answer them. Here we have something pointing to something very, very fishy indeed, and the people who have these accusations should be allowed to raise them and the minister should answer them honestly.

The CHAIR: I do not disagree with your assertion that it is not for the Chair to decide what questions are asked; in fact, I have never done that. I have always tried to be as fair and as broad as I can with my chairing of these committees. It seems to me that questions have been asked about the process within the minister's office—that is the primary point of your questioning—and some 10 minutes ago the minister addressed that. If you would like to reiterate a response in relation to the processes in his office—because that is what it is about now in this chamber rather than the process once it moved on from the minister's office to SAPOL. Am I summarising this correctly?

Mr ODENWALDER: With respect, sir, you have summarised things correctly thus far, but you cannot predict what the member for Badcoe's questions will be. If she asks questions on the same budget line, you cannot presume that the minister has already answered those questions until you hear the questions.

The CHAIR: That is a fair point, member for Elizabeth. The minister is taking advice now and looks to me like he is getting ready to respond.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If a letter was referred to SAPOL from our office, it would have been done as a standard process. What happens beyond that is up to SAPOL. I will certainly ask SAPOL to make inquiries but, as I said, no-one can also predict the outcome of a complaint—it is clearly a complaint—and I think that this matter has been traversed comprehensively now. I think there is really no more to say on this issue.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is up to the committee.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There is nothing but standard procedure, to my knowledge, that has been followed.

The CHAIR: I am happy to take another question.

Mr ODENWALDER: On that, SAPOL set aside, can the minister guarantee that no-one in his office, including himself, supplied this letter to any third party other than SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think that is an absolutely ridiculous allegation to make.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you guarantee it? Will you guarantee it? I am not making an allegation, I am asking a question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have absolutely nothing in front of me to suggest that. It is absolutely appalling.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am asking a question. Is it a no or yes?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to my former statement.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you guarantee it?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: A letter was referred to SAPOL—

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I understand that point.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —from our office in standard process—

Mr ODENWALDER: We are asking about before that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What happens beyond that—

Mr PEDERICK: This is not a debate.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a debate.

The CHAIR: It is a debate and debates occur in this place without interjection. Member for Elizabeth, you have asked your question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I said, sir, I refer to my earlier statements.

Ms STINSON: I refer you to the response that you provided before the member for Hammond's question in which you stated that in relation to this matter nothing was inconsistent with previous practice. If the handling of this matter is consistent with your usual practice, then my question is: has any other private communication that I have sent to you on behalf of my constituents been distributed to the public in the way that this letter has been?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not that I am aware of, but the commissioner has since informed me that he considers the nature of this issue to constitute a complaint. It will be formally registered and dealt with as a complaint. I hope that goes some way to allay the member's concern. This will be looked at by the commissioner.

The CHAIR: So that I am clear, is that complaint registered today from this committee?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It will be recorded as a complaint against police and dealt with accordingly.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms STINSON: I would like to take issue with that. I am not making a complaint against the police and neither are my constituents. My constituents who have raised this matter with me and I are concerned about how a letter that I wrote on behalf of my constituents to the minister has ended up being distributed on the streets of North Plympton, photocopied many, many times and handed out to motorists. Those motorists were handed the letter and told that if they had a problem with getting a fine that they should contact 'this lady', 'this woman', 'this girl' and should complain to me as the local member of parliament.

In addition to that, my constituents have raised with me that they understood that the operation itself was conducted purely on the say-so of me as the member of parliament. They are very concerned about that, that a member of parliament would have the ability to direct the police in such a way and that that is how things were presented to them on the day when they got the fine. They were told words to the effect that 'This operation is happening because of your local MP. Here is the letter that she wrote. If you have a problem with it, go and call your local MP.'

It was not described to them that this was a matter of law enforcement and that people had broken the law and, therefore, were being fined. They were handed letters upon being pulled over, told that the reason why they were being pulled over was that I, as the member for Badcoe, had instructed the police to conduct an operation. They were given a letter with my details on it raising the traffic matters in that district as proof that the operation was happening at the direction of the local MP. I can understand why people would be concerned—

The CHAIR: Of course, we all know that is not correct.

Ms STINSON: —that their local MP was able to direct police operations.

The CHAIR: We all know that is not correct.

Ms STINSON: And I am trying to find out why on earth that would happen, indeed if it has happened before. This is, I think, the third time I have written to the minister over 3½ years about this particular area, and naturally I am concerned about what has happened on those previous occasions. Have my private letters been distributed on those previous occasions to people in North Plympton or on many other occasions when I have rightly raised road safety issues with the minister's office?

I am almost speechless about the fact that this has occurred, and I think this is the correct forum for me to be able to ask questions of the minister, to ask the questions that I am seeking answers to and also that my constituents are seeking answers to about why on earth they would be pulled over, given a fine and be told that it is their local MP's fault and, if they have a problem with their fine, it is not to be taken up with police, it is to be taken up with their local politician who is exercising her right to advocate on behalf of constituents about road safety.

So that is the nature of my complaint. It is not about the police per se. It is about what happens when I raise an issue with the minister about policing matters and how a letter that I have written privately on behalf of my constituent could be distributed through the streets. Naturally, there are consequences as well for my constituent. It would not take too much for people to figure out who my constituent was considering that a letter on his behalf was distributed to complete strangers. Obviously, we have learned today there are 64 of them—maybe more—who received this letter.

I think this situation is bizarre, entirely unethical, completely offensive and is not in keeping with the proper discharge of police operations that are entirely separate from political activities.

The CHAIR: So you have given what I will take as commentary and background to your line of questioning.

Ms STINSON: Indeed, sir. Thank you.

The CHAIR: Are you able to tell the committee, and you may have already touched on this, who handed the letters out in the first instance?

Ms STINSON: I do not have the name of an officer, sir. I have not sought that information.

The CHAIR: No—when it was circulated publicly.

Ms STINSON: The information that has been provided to me from my constituents, and others who are not my constituents, is that they were pulled over on those three occasions, six operations, morning and night of those three dates in early July. Some of them were asked to leave their vehicles. They were handed a letter of mine, which I have distributed, and they were told that they were getting a fine of many hundreds of dollars and that the reason they were getting it was that the local MP had directed the police to conduct an operation.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That does sound like a complaint about police actions. As I have said respectfully on a number of occasions, there is a process by which that can be registered. The commissioner did consider the nature of this matter to constitute a complaint. It will be formally registered and dealt with as a complaint. It is clearly a complaint about an operational aspect.

The member would appreciate that I have no role in day-to-day SAPOL operational matters as minister. A letter may have been referred to SAPOL from our office in what would be nothing but the standard process, and it is entirely consistent sometimes for a minister's office to send a letter out to an agency for their attention. It is nothing but an entirely consistent approach here. I do not have specifics. I understand what the member is saying, and I understand the allegations that are being made, but certainly nothing is due to the conduct of my office in this regard.

Ms STINSON: Minister, can you guarantee that neither you nor your staff in your office handled my correspondence inappropriately or provided inappropriate direction to the police about how to respond to this letter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Will the commissioner investigate your office in relation to this matter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think I have referred to and reflected on this enough. As you pointed out, the commissioner has considered the nature of this issue to constitute a complaint. It will be formally registered and dealt with as a complaint. If there are any other complaints about any other correspondence or the way it has been handled, there are other ways that those complaints can also be made, but I have nothing before me to suggest that anything has been inappropriate.

The member also has a number of reporting obligations and, if she has any information before her, she might want to consider what those obligations are and she might want to report those accordingly.

Ms STINSON: I am aware of those obligations, thank you, minister. Will you ask the commissioner as part of this matter to investigate your office and what happened with this letter in your office?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I said, I think we have dealt with this enough. To be honest with you, as I said, if I have signed the response to the member this morning—

Ms STINSON: You have not answered that question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —I would have thought that nothing but standard procedure has been followed. I have no other information to suggest otherwise.

Ms STINSON: So it is standard procedure to hand out private correspondence and tell people that they should blame their local MP if they get a traffic infringement notice; is that your assertion?

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I am not going to stop the line of questioning if you are not ready to move on, but we have canvassed this issue broadly now and I think we have everything on the record.

Ms STINSON: I have some further questions, sir—

The CHAIR: You have further questions?

Ms STINSON: —including the question I just asked; that is, the minister just reflected that nothing has happened with this matter that is not standard procedure. Therefore, is it standard procedure for police to hand out letters written by MPs to ministers to people as part of traffic operations?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is the member's prerogative to pursue what I think is a very aggressive line of questioning. That is entirely reasonable for her to do but, with respect, I think I have answered a number of questions to the best of my knowledge and ability. We have highlighted that the commissioner does consider the nature of this to constitute a complaint. It will be formally registered and dealt with as a complaint, and I do not think I, respectfully, have anything else to add on this particular topic. This whole subject came as a surprise to me. I have only learnt about it from the member in this place today.

The CHAIR: We have spent nearly an hour on this particular issue. Once again, not that I am going to stop the committee from pursuing it but, member for Badcoe, you still have some questions to go?

Ms STINSON: I do, sir. Minister, will you and your office fully cooperate with an investigation into this matter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If there is any need to cooperate in relation to this matter, then I would expect nothing but cooperation from myself and also members of my office.

Ms STINSON: How many officers or staff in your office deal with police and would handle this kind of matter in your office?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Could the member just clarify. When she says 'deal with', what does she mean?

Ms STINSON: How many staff in your office would have the role of dealing with a matter such as this?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Just like any other bit of correspondence, it could have been dealt with by multiple people in the office. Again, I have nothing to suggest that anything but standard process and procedure would be followed here. If there is a complaint—and it sounds like one will be made—I am sure all those facts will come out in an objective and impartial manner. However, I have nothing before me to suggest it would be anything out of the ordinary.

Ms STINSON: Is the minister aware of this ever happening before? Is this something you have ever heard of before, that an MP's private correspondence to you would be distributed by officers on a public street to members of the public?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have certainly not heard of anything such in my time, no.

Ms STINSON: As a result of this, I received abusive phone calls due to the incident; however, I am concerned for the welfare of the constituent who wrote to me. I would say he is identifiable within that letter. Was any permission sought from him to distribute the letter raising his personal concerns, and have police done any follow-up about his welfare, considering that people in his neighbourhood know he raised this matter, and several people I am aware of were quite angry about it?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I would say all these matters would be part of the SAPOL investigation. The commissioner has articulated to me today that he does consider the nature of this subject matter to constitute a complaint, and it will be formally registered and dealt with as a complaint. I am sure any complaint will be dealt with in accordance with the PCDA, like any other complaint would be made.

Ms STINSON: The minister gave the information earlier today that police had been in communication with this gentleman. I ask again: has any, I suppose, welfare check been done for this constituent, considering that I am certainly aware of some quite abusive phone calls and communications as result of this?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, this is the first I have been made aware of this issue. If the member wanted a qualified answer, she may have been able to refer this issue to me before estimates. What I would have done is communicate that to SAPOL and perhaps that could have been considered. Instead, what she has done is bring it into this place and therefore I am taking it without any notice.

I do not have extensive facts in front of me in relation to this matter, but I am sure that if a welfare check needed to be made, whether it was or was not made, will be deliberated on. I encourage the member to raise issues like this as soon as she becomes aware of them so that the welfare of any constituent concerned can be attended to.

If that is her concern, if that is her aim, then I encourage her to do that—just as other members of parliament, on both sides of the spectrum, have done in the past, Labor and Liberal. It is not uncommon for them to pick up the phone and call me. That was not done in this particular instance.

What has happened here is I have been made aware of this situation in this chamber today. I do not have extensive facts in front of me but I am sure those matters will be considered. If there are allegations like threats, the person should also consider, if it is an emergency, calling 000 or, if it is not as urgent, calling 131 444.

I have to say that there would have been ways to go about this so I could have obtained more information to better answer this question. Instead, it has been brought in here without notice. As we have pointed out, it will be considered as a constituent complaint and it will be formally registered and dealt with as that complaint.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. Minister, can you understand how actions like this might deter citizens from coming forward to their local MP in future and raising legitimate issues about policing and road safety?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Other than to refer to my earlier comments about what might or might not happen—these are hypothetical assertions now. I am not sure how these quite relate to a budget line. I think you are being very generous in your deliberation.

The CHAIR: You have been very generous in your answers.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have one last question on this line, sir.

The CHAIR: One last question. Before you ask that question—I appreciate that it is your last question—again I am going to say that we have canvassed this extensively. It is not for me to direct the line of questioning, but the estimate of payments in this portfolio is a billion dollars' worth of payments. I am sure the member for Elizabeth's question is in relation to the budget.

Mr ODENWALDER: We want to make sure it is being spent correctly. I just want to seek some clarification or base my question on the minister's previous answer. One of the reasons this was brought to this place and is being canvassed in this forum is that, as the minister has confirmed, this letter could have potentially gone through multiple hands within his own office before it reached SAPOL. I ask the minister what measures he will take within his own office to get to the bottom of who handled it and where it went from their hands, and will he report that back to the house?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have nothing to suggest that anything other than standard procedure from my office was followed. If the member has any facts to the contrary, I would encourage the member—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I am asking you what measures you will take, minister. What measures will you take within your own office to establish who handled the letter?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have nothing before me to suggest anything but proper practice was followed. If the member for Badcoe, Elizabeth or anyone else has any facts or evidence to the contrary, then I would be willing to acknowledge that and to accept that. From the actions of police, we have deliberated and answered that matter. It will be considered as a complaint and formally registered and dealt with accordingly, just like any other complaint.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 69. We will get back to COVID-19 resources. I will refer specifically to the seven-day lockdown we just endured. How many fines were issued during the lockdown period for noncompliance? Was anyone arrested, or were there any other actions taken against people for noncompliance? To clarify, that is compliance with the lockdown restrictions.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. As of Wednesday 28July, I have been informed that 559 cautions were given and 316 fines—those two together. There were also a number of arrests. We do not have the details in front of us on the number of arrests. As the member would appreciate, some of those matters may still be being finalised. The lockdown only ended a matter of days ago, so I am happy to take that particular information on notice as it still may be going through the system.

The vast majority of South Australians obviously did the right thing and I want to thank them for that. Unfortunately, there were some out there who did ignore the warnings, but I would say that South Australia Police did a sterling job policing the state, not only over the seven-day lockdown but over the period that COVID has challenged the state.

Mr ODENWALDER: I agree. Are COVID tests routine for prisoners entering police custody?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised no, but South Australia Police do of course have very strict protocols in place to ensure the safety of police and also in the management of prisoners in terms of not only COVID but also other communicable diseases.

Mr ODENWALDER: Has there been any discussion with your agency, either between you and the agency or within the agency, about such a measure? It seems to me that in a pandemic, particularly during an outbreak such as we have seen in the last seven days, it might be reasonable to assume that someone who is willingly breaching a COVID order may be more of a risk to those around him or her than others.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Certainly, member for Elizabeth, we could probably talk about what the corrections department is doing from a prisoner point of view. But in terms of a SAPOL point of view, has there been any discussion? No, COVID testing is done by SA Health at COVID testing stations.

Mr ODENWALDER: I apologise if you answered this question earlier about the PSOs, but what percentage of current serving police are fully vaccinated?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: At 30 June, it was 23 per cent, but I have no doubt that it will be much higher now. That is the most up-to-date information that I formally have, but it will be much higher than that.

Mr ODENWALDER: How many police officers are currently isolating following a COVID test or an exposure to known cases or clusters?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously that number does fluctuate. My information is 98 at the moment, but I understand that about 60 are due to be released on the weekend.

Mr ODENWALDER: How does the commissioner inform you and the Premier of the decisions the commissioner has made following either a Transition Committee meeting or a directions committee meeting?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I would point out that the relevant act is committed to the Premier, not to me; therefore, the commissioner would provide communication to the Premier directly. Of course, it would depend on the nature and severity of that information. Some of it would be quite procedural in nature, but it is safe to say that the commissioner would provide regular updates to the Premier insofar as decisions may have a policing impact. The commissioner certainly keeps me regularly updated as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is there currently an investigation underway into the circumstances of the 81 year old who arrived from Argentina who is suspected to have led to the Modbury cluster, including border approvals by SAPOL; if so, who is leading that investigation?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. That is probably a better question for Health, but I am advised that there is certainly no suggestion of wrongdoing the part of any person in relation to the origins of the Modbury outbreak. The matter was examined by SA Health, and my understanding is that there is no basis for any further investigation, but again it is a matter for SA Health.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did SAPOL provide him with permission to enter South Australia on 8 July without the need for quarantine?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Can you say that again?

Mr ODENWALDER: Did SAPOL provide this man with permission to enter South Australia on 8 July without the need for quarantine? By way of background, on 8 July, level 4 border restrictions were in place with New South Wales.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that on 8 July that particular person had completed 14 days of quarantine in Sydney, and at that time SA Health managed the exemptions for people who had returned to SA and who had completed quarantine.

Mr ODENWALDER: Just to clarify, he was treated as an exemption and was not subject to any testing requirements in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am happy to provide further detail on notice only because I do not have that information, other than to say, 'Refer to my former answer.' I will check and come back to the member with that specific information.

Mr ODENWALDER: The public information is that, as part of that 14-day period you are talking about, this man spent 10 days in a Sydney hospital. Who determined—was it SAPOL or was it SA Health—that four days in hotel quarantine and 10 days in hospital were equivalent to 14 days' supervised quarantine?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We are talking about a health-based process here, so what I will do is take the specifics on notice and come back to the member.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 195. My questions relate to the description/objective, which states: 'Provides visible and available police services, working in partnership with the community and other agencies.' I will ask a little bit about the APY lands policing model if you need some clarification. After announcing in the 2019-20 budget cuts of $1 million a year for APY policing, do you expect that the new APY policing model will still constitute a saving, how will that saving be achieved and what is the quantum of the saving?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That model is still being worked through, and it has been out for consultation, so final savings are not yet clear. Overall, I think it will certainly result in much better service delivery, from a SAPOL perspective but also for people on the lands, with more consistent staff levels and overall better outcomes on the APY lands.

Mr ODENWALDER: What was the quantum of the savings? What is it expected to save?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Originally, $1 million was the savings amount but, as I said, that model is still being worked through. It is still out for consultation and those savings are not yet clear. It is still being worked through.

Mr ODENWALDER: I had a briefing—an excellent briefing—with the shadow attorney-general where we were given a figure of between $350,000 and $400,000. Would that be about right? Is that the sort of ballpark you are looking at?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. That number could change. It is still being worked through and there could be further discussions that occur between police and the government if that number does change.

Mr ODENWALDER: As I said, the opposition has been briefed by police, and it was an excellent briefing. Can the minister confirm to this house that the new model will see individual police officers spending less time in particular communities?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No, I think the new model will certainly provide continual rotation of police and certainly more enhanced community engagement.

Mr ODENWALDER: But will individual officers spend less time in those communities than they currently do now over any given period?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I might get the commissioner to elaborate on this particular model.

Cmmr STEVENS: The model that is currently being finalised sees a dedicated group of police officers selected to provide a policing service to the APY. They will spend eight days in community and two weeks back in the metropolitan area, which will incorporate their rostered days off plus training time and metropolitan deployments.

The model sees the same police officers on rotation being deployed to specific communities, so the communities will deal with approximately six individual police who are continually rotating through. It is arguable that this will be a dramatically enhanced level of community engagement, compared with the current model that sees us struggling to maintain establishment positions on the APY lands and having to rely on short-term relievers going up to perform that role.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, commissioner. You answered about five of my questions at once, so I appreciate that. As to the metropolitan deployments, you talk about eight days on the lands. Presumably, is it one or two rostered days off in that period?

Cmmr STEVENS: Whilst they are deployed to the APY, they will not have rostered days off.

Mr ODENWALDER: So there are eight days in the lands working?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: In a three-week period, you have one rostered day off?

Cmmr STEVENS: I do not know the specifics of the roster, but over a three-week period eight continuous days are spent operational on the APY. Their rostered days off will be taken back in the metropolitan area, and there will be opportunities for training, administration and metropolitan deployments in the remaining period of that 14 days they are back in the metro area.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is there any intention about what the nature of those metropolitan deployments will be, or will it just be on an operational needs basis?

Cmmr STEVENS: Basically, on an operational needs basis to ensure that the broad range of skills required for policing are kept alive and current so they do not become entirely focused on remote policing in APY communities.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is the intention that they bring back some of the skills or knowledge or experience of working in the APY lands to the metropolitan area and perhaps be engaged in metropolitan deployments that involve Aboriginal people in the metropolitan community?

Cmmr STEVENS: It may be the case that police officers who have experience on the APY are tasked to incidents or jobs that involve Aboriginal people from the APY who happen to be in the metropolitan area, but we do have community constables who are also responsible for engagement with Indigenous communities and people from those communities who happen to be in the metropolitan area at any given time.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, commissioner. Minister, when you visited the APY lands in April this year exactly which community councils did you meet with?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The purpose of the visit was to understand more about the day-to-day challenges and roles that SAPOL play on the APY lands and to get firsthand experience of those. It was a real privilege to be able to speak to a range of officers and community constables on the lands to appreciate the challenges from a resourcing point of view.

Whilst it was a short visit, I would encourage all ministers who have relevant roles on the APY lands to go up to what is a very beautiful but also challenging part of the state. It is certainly my intention to go back and attend again, and on my second visit it will be a privilege to meet with APY Executive and council, but I did not meet them on the first occasion.

Mr ODENWALDER: Which Anangu elders or Aboriginal leaders at all did the minister meet with while in the APY lands?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The purpose of the first visit was to inspect the facilities and have a firsthand experience and appreciation of SAPOL's resourcing concerns on the lands. Whilst I do not have the names, I did speak to a range of Aboriginal community constables, and it was a real pleasure to do that. I also spoke to a number of people in the communities of Ernabella, Fregon and Amata, but I do not have their names in front of me.

It was also a real privilege to see, for example, the great engagement that a number of artists have with some of the communities up there. As I pointed out, whilst it was a privilege to attend the first time, on my second visit I do intend to meet and discuss matters with the APY Executive and council. I did not have the time to do it on the first occasion.

Mr ODENWALDER: Do you have any idea what the views of the Aboriginal people are on the lands, including the community councils and the elders? If there is overwhelming community resistance to the change, will you revisit the model?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think it is safe to say that there has been extensive consultation on the model. As the commissioner has highlighted, looking forward the new model will certainly result in a much better continual application of worthwhile policing on the lands. In terms of what the other feedback is in the community, whilst the first visit did not result in my visiting the council or the executive, I am certainly happy to discuss that with them on my second visit. I am also advised, member for Elizabeth, that the commissioner also attended on a further occasion on the lands and spoke to a range of people up on the lands, and there seemed to be broad support as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it the case that in communities just across the border—for example, Blackstone in WA, some communities in the NT, or closer to home in Marla, which is just across the highway from the APY lands in South Australia—there is a permanent police presence with the same officers posted all year round, with the obvious exception of standard leave?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, any issue for police in Western Australia would be a matter for Western Australian police. Marla, I am advised, is not for SAPOL's purposes—well, I will have to check whether it actually is in the APY. It is just outside the APY lands.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is what I said, yes. It is outside the APY lands.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: So SAPOL on the APY certainly have a different set of conditions, if you like.

Mr ODENWALDER: Why would that be? I am not trying to be tricky. I am just trying to establish why you would need a different type of policing model across the highway from Marla. Why can you have a permanent and consistent police model there but not on the APY lands?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Marla is not on the APY and the—

Mr ODENWALDER: That is my point.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is a very unique and different part of the state that does require a nuanced policing method and model. The award is also treated differently. It is a unique part of the world, and it is a challenging part of the world with some quite unique circumstances. Therefore, that is what distinguishes it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are you aware of anywhere else in Australia that has a similar model to the one you are proposing for the APY lands, this what we will call fly-in fly-out model?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am happy to take that on notice, but I am sure the project team considered a whole range of factors and models that may have been considered from interstate as well. But I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 193, to the workforce summary. You spoke in your opening statement about 72 additional police. I think that is the figure you gave. Is that what you said? Can you clarify that?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it not true, though, that these are simply recruitments brought forward so that over a longer period after attrition we will arrive at the same number? So in that sense they are not additional police. They are police who have been prematurely recruited.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In terms of the PSOs, the 168 are additional. In terms of the police roles that create additional capacity, they have been brought forward. Whilst they may be absorbed through attrition at 30 June, I am sure there will certainly be a conversation between the commissioner and me—or whoever is minister at that time—about also extending those, should it be required operationally.

Mr ODENWALDER: As at 30 June, how many sworn police officer FTEs were employed by SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Total police as at 30 June 2021, including community constables, is 4,657.8.

Mr ODENWALDER: What is the expectation of—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There are 50 cadets.

Mr ODENWALDER: And 50 cadets?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: There is no suggestion that any PSOs will be included in those numbers going forward, is there?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I believe the EB sees certain PSOs transition to come under the Police Act, but that information is still being worked through. How that will be funded is still being worked through as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: I go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 192, which covers ministerial responsibilities. How often do you meet with the Commissioner of Police? I will not count today.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. We do have a regular meeting scheduled in, but we also meet on a needs basis and we are happy to communicate as we need to. Consistent with all the other chiefs, we do have a regular fortnightly meeting scheduled in.

Mr ODENWALDER: Does your Chief of Staff attend these regularly scheduled meetings?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, usually he does.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did the previous minister have similar regularly scheduled meetings with the commissioner, and are you aware if the previous minister's Chief of Staff also attended those meetings?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Consistent with the theme today, I am not really responsible for what the former minister did. I am not sure about those arrangements, but I would say that a fortnightly meeting would have been the normal course for the minister to meet with the commissioner. I do not have the facts in front of me as to exactly who was at those meetings, but my Chief of Staff certainly attends meetings with me fortnightly.

Mr ODENWALDER: So your expectation would be that that would have been the case under the previous minister? Is that a reasonable expectation?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I just cannot speak for the former minister and the way he structured his office or his regular meetings. I certainly do, and my Chief of Staff attends fortnightly.

Mr ODENWALDER: When you took over the police portfolio, were any allegations or complaints raised with you about bullying or intimidation by the former minister and his staff?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Were any concerns raised by anyone within SAPOL about how the previous minister or his staff managed the portfolio?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, are you planning to do the omnibus questions?

Mr ODENWALDER: I will read them now. Can I do that?

The CHAIR: You have time; read them now. I have a brief statement I would like to make at the end.

Mr ODENWALDER: They are:

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2021 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates;

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates;

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates;

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates; and

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

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

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2021-22, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period;

The top 10 providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2020-21;

A description of the goods and/or services provided by each of these top 10 providers, and the cost to the agency for these goods and/or services; and

The value of the goods and services that was supplied to the agency by South Australian suppliers?

3. Between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment?

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

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21 and what was their employment expense;

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and what is their estimated employment expense;

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2020-21 and budgeted cost for 2021-22?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contractors between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2021, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

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

How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2020-21;

What department funded these TVSPs (except for DTF estimates);

What number of TVSPs were funded;

What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded; and

What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2020 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2020, what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess and what is the salary of each excess employee?

12. In the 2020-21 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2021-22?

13. In the 2020-21 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2021-22? How was much sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Balance of the grant program or fund;

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

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

Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

15. For the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

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

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

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates;

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target; and

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what initiatives or programs have been approved and funded as at 1 July 2021 but not publicly announced or disclosed in the budget papers?

The CHAIR: Thank you; well read. I am just going to make a brief statement in relation to the document circulated by the member for Badcoe.

I am going to remind members that there is no provision for the tabling of documents before the committee, so the document was circulated rather than tabled. The document circulated by the member for Badcoe was provided to assist the committee in its deliberation only and should not be distributed outside the committee. Members may hand the document back to the committee clerk for disposal if they wish.

There is probably time for one more question, member for Elizabeth, if you wish. You do not have to; do not feel obliged.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 199, crime and illegal drugs. I hope the minister has read the Minister for Education's comments in committee B yesterday about the sniffer dog policy, which was the signature drug policy brought by the Liberals to the last election. The Minister for Education stated that there are four searches in train and that there have been two searches of schools since the inception of the protocol. Can the minister confirm that on both those occasions, the only two occasions that this protocol has been used, no drugs were found at the school?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: My advice is that to date SAPOL and the Department for Education have undertaken two operations: Birdwood High School in November 2019 and Roma Mitchell Secondary College, Northfield, in June 2021. Whilst indications of the presence of drug odour were provided at both schools, there were no detections of any illicit substances on either occasion.

Mr ODENWALDER: How much notice were students given of the pending search? Was it a surprise to them?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I would have to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister, his advisers, the police commissioner, of course, and the committee. Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for South Australia Police and the Administered Items for South Australia Police to be complete.

Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 13:45.