Department for Infrastructure and Transport, $1,086,425,00

Administered Items for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, $6,293,000

Membership:

Ms Hood substituted for Ms Hutchesson.

Ms Stinson substituted for Ms Wortley.

Mr Cowdrey substituted for Mr Whetstone.

Hon. D.G. Pisoni substituted for Mr Pederick.

Minister:

Hon. G.G. Brock, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms J. Formston, Executive Director, People and Corporate Services, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Ms A. Hart, Director, Office for Local Government, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Mr D. Whiterod, Team Leader, Local Government Policy, Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

The CHAIR: Good afternoon, members of the committee, minister and advisers. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that is the case?

Mr TELFER: Yes.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Yes, it is Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 2 September 2022. I remind members that omnibus questions for all Minister Brock's portfolios were asked on Friday by the member for Hammond, so you do not need to ask any omnibus questions today.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes, should they wish to do so, but they do not have to. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers, through the Chair. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced.

I will now proceed to open the following lines. Portfolios are the Office of Local Government, the Outback Communities Authority and the Local Government Grants Commission. The minister appearing is the Minister for Local Government. I declare the proposed payments reopened for examination. Minister, do you wish to make a statement or introduce your advisers?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, thank you, Mr Chair, there will not be any opening statement by me. I would like to introduce my advisers and staff. On my left is Alex Hart, Director, Office of Local Government. On my right is Jude Formston, Executive Director, Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and behind me is David Whiterod from the Office of Local Government.

The CHAIR: You are the lead speaker for the opposition.

Mr TELFER: Yes.

The CHAIR: Go ahead.

Mr TELFER: I will make a statement before I start questions. As someone who has had a long association with local government it is a privilege to open up these numbers. Although the page numbers are scant, the detail is well fit to be unpacked. I think there are a lot of different areas not just within the pages of 143 and 144, which I assume we will be in most of the time, that impact local communities and local government in particular.

I certainly note the experience of the minister in local government and you, Mr Chair. To have three of us as former mayors is probably unique, and it gives us an insight into the impact state government decisions have on local government and local communities.

The CHAIR: You can ask questions, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 143 and 144. Does the Office of Local Government have a component of savings to be made under the efficiency dividend targets?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Yes, the Department of Treasury and Finance has given all agencies a savings. It is a very small savings and it will not have very much impact on the overall budget. Before I start, I would also acknowledge the member's role in local government over many years, and I am looking forward to working very closely with him in the next four years.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister. Can you give me a percentage number for that component of savings to be made under the efficiency dividend targets?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The department have not worked that out at this stage. They are still working through that. Certainly, once we get it, I am happy to share that information with the member. I will take that on notice.

Mr TELFER: Thank you very much. I thought you might be able to work it out. With respect to the changes in FTE, there is a change from 12.1 to 10.5. Can you give us an explanation about that change and what impact it might have towards any specific local government area?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The position that will be reduced was through the MUNS project, and that will expire on 30 June this year.

Mr TELFER: Through the what, sorry?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The MUNS program. Are you okay with that?

Mr TELFER: No, I would like an explanation of that.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We can give you an update on that in a minute. That position will terminate on 30 June this year. That certainly will not have any impact on the operation because that was only there for the delivery of the MUNS program.

Mr TELFER: Can you give me an explanation of what the MUNS program is, please, for those of us who are not as well adept at some of the acronyms?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: In 2020-21, the state budget allocated $9.1 million to address repair of renewable and reciprocal services (MUNS) related infrastructure that is critical to the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal communities. It included roads, waste landfills, playgrounds and public spaces, base-water systems and household septic tanks.

The funding commitment was based on an audit of all the infrastructure in communities that identified a priority listing for all needed infrastructure work. This program will address critical needs, improve safety and amenities in the communities and ensure that all communities are best placed to service and maintain infrastructure that is in good condition over the coming nears.

Most of the infrastructure funding will be spent by 30 June 2022—as I indicated earlier, because that is when the program will cease—to ensure that all communities receive the infrastructure renewals they need as quickly as possible and that the funding stimulates local employment at this time.

Discussions with all communities regarding prioritised work and opportunities for Aboriginal employment were completed in mid-December 2020. Wherever possible, procurement processes have involved select tenders solely to Aboriginal companies identified as capable of undertaking specific projects and employment of local Aboriginal labour.

In relation to the position that has been queried, an additional FTE was committed to this program. As I said a bit earlier, that project will finish at 30 June, so that is where the impact will come in.

Mr TELFER: That is the 1.0 FTE change, and there is also an additional 0.6 change. Can you explain what that area is going to be in?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As I said earlier, the department is working through this. The Treasurer has given all departments efficiency savings, and the department is working through that. The 0.6, as I have been advised, is part of the MUNS program, that particular portion of it. It should have very little impact on the operation of the Office of Local Government going forward after that.

I have also just been advised that in addition to the MUNS program, the reduction, there is a further reduction and the department is working through that at the moment. That is the program that, as I said to the member earlier, as soon as we get that information from the department and finalised, I am happy to share it. I will take that on notice and share that with you as the shadow minister.

Mr TELFER: Certainly that information is very important, that seemingly a $9.1 million project has been cut.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Can I clarify that it is completed: it is not cut. It was only there for a 12-month period of time. It was always going to expire on 30 June, to be completed by then, so I would prefer if the member does not say 'cut'. That was the term of the project and it was going to expire on 30 June, so I think we need to make certain for Hansard that that project was there for only a certain period of time and that the expiry date is 30 June 2022.

Mr TELFER: Apologies.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I just want to get it clear.

Mr TELFER: I will not say that it has been cut; I will say that the new government has not renewed the project. Minister, from page 144, can you explain the 25 per cent decrease in the budget line grants and subsidies?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the variations in the Office of Local Government program are largely generated by the MUNS, the Municipal Services in Aboriginal Communities program that is delivered by the Office of Local Government. In the 2020-21 state budget, $9.1 million was committed to this program, which is therefore shown across both supplies and services and grants and subsidies for the three years which is included. With your indulgence, Chair, I would just ask for the officer Alex Hart to clarify a couple of those projects for the member, if she can.

Ms HART: Thank you minister. As the minister has indicated, the variation in our budget, particularly across supplies and services and also the grants and subsidies figures, is almost entirely generated by specific project funding that was provided to our office to deliver specific projects, in particular the $9.1 million the minister has referred to for the repair and renewal of infrastructure across communities that receive municipal services grants.

Looking at the supplies and services budget, the 2021 actual figure there, the expenditure of $590,000, actually reflects not the MUNS infrastructure program that for that year was attributed entirely to grants and subsidies but, in fact, the spend on the local government information framework, also known as Councils in Focus, which generated the Councils in Focus website, that was a 2021 budget initiative that was delivered across that year by our office.

In the ensuing year, you can see that we had a $3.337 million attribution to our office to spend on the MUNS infrastructure. As the minister indicated, that program is scheduled to be completed on 30 June this year, hence the loss of the position connected to that but, things being as they are, there has been a bring forward of a portion of that money into 2022-23, which is reflected in that larger figure of $4.335 million.

So the $2.329 million is not entirely but largely the money that was spent on the MUNS infrastructure program and the $4.335 is the carryover that was necessary to request at the time of the budget. That will need to be significantly less because, in the ensuing time, we have both paid quite a number of invoices that have come in through the completion of projects and also made some good progress on putting contracts in place for the remainder of that $9.1 million spend.

The amount for 2020-21 for the MUNS infrastructure program was put into grants and subsidies, which is why that looks unusually high at $5.288 million. The other two amounts you can see there are $3.993. They are a combination of the annual service grants that go out to all communities, which sit at around $3 million a year, plus an extra million dollars a year for 2021-22 that was given directly to the South Australian Housing Authority to undertake much-needed work to upgrade septic tanks in a number of Aboriginal communities across the state.

So, it was a million dollars in 2020-21 and another million dollars in 2021-22, which is why there appears to be a drop in the grants and subsidies from $4 million, approximately, to just below $3 million.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, the funds that have been cut from here, both the MUNS and the valuable Indigenous septic tank replacement program, are both from Indigenous community projects?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We need to clarify. I need to get it right because, in future years, looking at the wording may have an influence. The programs have been completed. Once those programs are completed, those funds will come away from there, so, yes, the member is correct in that terminology. That is what has impacted that.

Mr TELFER: I am certainly not one to get into semantics, but I will clarify and say that the two projects that have not been renewed are both from Indigenous projects.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Yes, that was always going to be the time frame for the completion of the three-year period; therefore, yes, that is going to be completed at 30 June 2022.

Mr TELFER: Can I ask a subsequent question to that, Mr Chair? Regarding the projects that were delivered under those two schemes—the MUNS and the Indigenous septic tank project—was there a review of them to ensure that there were not additional works that were necessary that flowed from a formal review to ensure that the decision that was made to not renew that program was one that was made with full information?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: First up, I am advised that a complete audit was carried out on all Aboriginal communities involved with this to ensure that all the infrastructure was coming up. I have been advised that the audit took around about three months and, to the credit of the previous government and the previous ministers, that audit identified that there was a requirement of around about $9.1 million required to fulfill that detailed audit that was done over that three-month period. I am advised that those funds were guaranteed in the 2020-21 state budget.

I want to congratulate and commend the previous government and also the previous minister for being able to get that money. I am sure that the member, being an ex-mayor and also presently in the Local Government Association, would be very well aware of the challenges that outback communities, specifically Aboriginal communities, face up there. Any of this $9.1 million I am very sure would have been very greatly appreciated and received by those communities there to try to get them a far better living standard and help them in their journey in life.

Mr TELFER: Thank you very much, minister, and I echo your commendation of the previous government. Were all works that were identified through that audit process delivered by the funding stream, and was there a report which flowed from that to ensure that that program was delivered?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Sorry, Mr Chair, could the member please repeat that?

Mr TELFER: Were all works that were identified through that three-month audit process actually delivered by the funding? Was there a subsequent audit and report to ensure that those works were completed?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I again thank the member for his question. I have been advised that after the completed audit, which was pretty detailed, there may still be some projects in some areas that have not been completed by 30 June this year, but they will be completed in the next two to three months, and we will ensure that happens. The Labor position, which has been allocated extra to assist this to make certain we have this up, will be ceasing on 30 June, but we can give a guarantee, I am advised, that all the projects, any other projects that have been identified, will be completed this coming year.

As I said before on other occasions, I am happy to communicate with the shadow minister regarding any issues or variations in that project because these projects are very well received by the outback communities, in particular, and Aboriginal communities. I know the dedication of the shadow minister for local government and his passion for community people in the outback areas, so I am giving an undertaking and I will continue to give that undertaking to ensure that any changes or challenges will be communicated with the shadow minister.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister. It certainly seems to be a very valuable program and we need to ensure all the works were done appropriately. Can I get a little bit more explanation around the $4.335 million supplies and services line because there is still a bit of ambiguity around that? There was a statement, I thought, that some of that funding was already used before the end of this financial year. If that number is going to be different, what is the number for this financial year?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Again, I thank the member for the question. That $4.335 million is as is indicated. What I will do, if it is okay, is ask the Director of OLG (Office of Local Government) to give the member and the estimates committee some more information on that. The director has all that information, so I will ask the director, if it is alright with you, Mr Chair, to facilitate that.

Ms HART: Thanks, minister. As I said a little while ago, that figure in our supplies and services largely represents the carryover that was needed to be requested at budget time for the MUNS infrastructure program. I am sure members can appreciate that delivering infrastructure renewal in remote Aboriginal communities can at times be challenging and not always run quite as smoothly as one would like.

The number looks quite large, but there has been significant movement on that since the budget papers were released. There have been about $900,000 worth of invoices that have come in and been paid in the intervening time, so the carryover will not be as large as is indicated in this budget paper (of course, that will be clarified in next year's budget) for some significant road projects.

One of the other road projects that did not quite make it over the line in time for this budget was a repair and reseal of roads in homelands on the West Coast, which are homelands outside Ceduna. That contract is around $1.4 million, and it has just been signed with the relevant supplier. I am very happy to say that it is an Aboriginal-owned company that will be delivering that work, which is terrific.

Then there is an assortment of other projects that have not been quite completed or that have had some other issues that have prevented them from being implemented. We have a significant upgrade of the wastewater plant at Yarilena, a small community just west of Ceduna. That is mostly done, but we have about $100,000 worth of work to complete there.

We have had some negotiations with the Oak Valley community, which is in the Maralinga Tjarutja lands. We originally anticipated we would be doing some road renewals, but the community communicated to us that they would actually prefer the money we had allocated to that to be spent on constructing a large shed to keep their MUNS equipment safe and secure, so we will be redirecting the funding towards what they have told us is their community priority.

We have another piece of work that has not progressed as quickly as we would like, and that is waste clean-up at Yalata and Koonibba. That is proving to be a little bit challenging; sometimes it can be challenging to just locate where in the communities the waste clean-up needs to happen, from what is essentially illegal dumping. It can be quite time consuming. That is another project that will be getting our close attention over the next few months.

Finally, the last significant chunk we would like to get out the door but have been prevented from doing simply because we have had challenges finding contractors in recent times—which I am sure members can appreciate—is some money that is there to upgrade playgrounds in all the communities and resurface courts. We have just had trouble finding a contractor who is available to undertake that work for us, which is why that project, worth in the order of about half a million dollars, has been delayed.

However, as the minister said, we are expecting to complete that whole program in the next few months—as soon as we can because it is, of course, vitally needed and much-appreciated work in all the communities that receive it.

Mr TELFER: I have another question for the minister. We will continue on with Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 143. In the targets 2022-23 there is a statement around the establishment of the new council member conduct management framework. What are the new arrangements with the new council member conduct management framework?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for the question. As the member would realise, as an ex-president as well as an ex-mayor, this local government reform is going to be very important. One of the most significant reforms of the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Act 2021, which was the amendment act, is a new council member conduct management framework. This new framework will formally commence in November 2022 to coincide with the new term for councils following the state council elections. I am looking forward to this being implemented.

Under the new framework, councils will continue to have primary responsibility for managing complaints about poor council member behaviour. However, a new behaviour standards panel (the panel) will deal with matters that cannot be resolved at a council level: in particular, repeated or serious misbehaviour by council members. The panel has been given wideranging and flexible powers to enable more efficient resolution of difficult behavioural issues, including the power to suspend a council member for a maximum period of three months with or without payment of allowances.

While the panel's formal functions will not commence until November 2022, the three-member panels have been appointed to enable them to establish the practice directions, guidance papers and operating procedures that are necessary to have in place before November 2022. Again, the Local Government Association is closely involved with this work. I also note that the OLG is working very closely with the LGA on all aspects of the new framework and appreciates its commitment to implementing the new arrangement, particularly the panel. That is where it is at. That will be in place after the November 2022 council elections.

Mr TELFER: Who is going to be responsible for the costs of that new council member conduct management framework going forward, and is there insight into what those costs might be?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the cost of establishing the operation of the panel will be undertaken by the Local Government Association. I am also advised that when the panel is up and running the costs involved will be borne by the council that is involved in bringing the concern to the panel. However, I am very confident that the cost that will be incurred by the council that is involved with the councillor or the elected member who has been brought into question will be far less than councils are currently paying in legal fees. Again, the LGA is responsible for the establishment and the operation of the panel itself but, once the issue has been raised by whichever council it is, the financial concerns will be the responsibility of that council.

Mr TELFER: Do you have any insight into the dollar figures of what those establishment costs might be and/or the expected operation costs?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Office of Local Government has been working very closely with the Local Government Association, and that partnership has been going on for a while. I give credit to both the Office of Local Government and the LGA for working very closely together on that. I do not want to indicate the cost at this point, but on a monthly basis the Office of Local Government will give an update of the costs that are being incurred during this period of time.

However, I am also advised that that is not a very significant amount. As I indicated previously, I am very happy to report back when the final dollar amount is established and available. I will not only take that on notice for this estimates committee but also liaise directly with the shadow minister.

Mr TELFER: Who is going to be responsible for the development of the Community Engagement Charter, which is referenced in the same targets on page 143 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Regarding the Community Engagement Charter, the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review Act) 2021 introduced the requirement for a community engagement charter (the charter), which will replace current prescriptive statutory requirements with a more modern and flexible approach to council community engagement policies. The charter will set minimum standards for the most significant decisions councils make, such as their draft annual business plan and also the rating policy for each year.

The charter will, however, largely focus on a principle-based approach to allow councils to determine how exactly they will best engage with their communities on their decisions and their activities. I am sure the member is aware—as an ex-local government president, as I and others in this house are—of the community engagement and how we do that for communities in both the metropolitan and regional areas. I have been advised that consultation on the draft charter will be delayed until after the elections.

Feedback received over this period will help to inform the final charter to ensure that it finds the right balance between enabling councils to use their knowledge of how to engage with their community and also to assure ratepayers that proper attention will be given to the most important decisions councils make each year. The member also asked who is responsible for publishing the notice that will establish the charter. I can advise the member that I will be responsible for publishing the notice that will establish the charter. The Office of Local Government has been working with the LGA on this.

We have to make certain we get this right. We want to make certain we get this communication out not only to local councils but also to the general public.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, the question was: who is responsible for the development of the Community Engagement Charter? Is your answer that it is going to be the OLG?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am publishing the notification, so I am responsible.

Mr TELFER: What about the actual process of development? Who is going to be leading that? Is it going to be the OLG or the LGA?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Office of Local Government will be giving me advice on that. I am very happy to continue the liaison with the shadow minister to ensure that we work together to establish the best opportunities for this process to get into place after the November 2022 council elections.

Mr TELFER: Is the minister aware of concerns from local government about increased costs to ratepayers because of government election promises about council infrastructure, which have foisted increased infrastructure and depreciation costs onto councils?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Can the member repeat the question and provide the committee with the line he is referring to?

Mr TELFER: I guess it would be, minister, that the targets consider legislative amendments, and this is something that is very pertinent to local government at the moment. Increased infrastructure costs that get put onto councils, especially from other levels of government, mean that the depreciation then needs to be calculated into long-term financial plans. As you would be well aware, councils are expected to have 100 per cent asset renewal within their long-term financial plans, so higher infrastructure means that there are going to be higher depreciation costs on councils.

The CHAIR: Can the member for Flinders just reference that again for me, please? I did not quite see that one.

Mr TELFER: The interesting part with these two budget papers—literally, two pages—is that all these items that pertain to local government have to be focused on by the Office of Local Government. I am asking if the office is aware of these things and, if so, whether there will have to be resources that are allocated to it from these numbers here on page 144.

The CHAIR: I will make a ruling on this because I think this one has gone a bit beyond what is in the budget papers. I make the ruling on the basis that it is open to members to ask those sorts of questions at question time. Question time and estimates are two different processes. Question time is designed for what I believe are questions like you have asked, quite legitimately. What you just asked does not fit that requirement, so you need to either rephrase the question so it fits into one of the requirements on page 143 or wait for question time.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir: the objective and description of the Office of Local Government are very clear. The Office of Local Government provides policy and other advice to the Minister for Local Government. This includes advice on the operation of the Local Government Act and related legislation. The question—

The CHAIR: Which section of the act are you referring to?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not need to refer to the section of the act, sir. It refers to the entire act in this description, and the member is rightly asking a question related to that act.

The CHAIR: I am ruling that is beyond the scope of this estimates committee. If the member can find—

Mr TELFER: I will do my best to reword. Has the minister been advised by the office about concerns from local government about increased costs to ratepayers because of election promises made and infrastructure being funded that are within councils' long-term financial plan implications because of the depreciation costs?

Ms STINSON: Point of order: there was no budget paper reference there.

Mr TELFER: It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 143. The original question included that because of the paragraph at the top.

The CHAIR: Given the nature of the question, which has quite a broad latitude, the minister has broad latitude in terms of the response he provides.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Mr Chairman, are you allowing me to make a comment on this?

The CHAIR: Yes, of course. I just said that.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: To the member, two things: if you have any examples, I would be happy to hear them; secondly, I have had no discussion from any councils regarding those projects that were election projects by the Labor Party leading up to the election. Certainly, those infrastructure programs you are talking about—I think that includes for not only local government but other associations, private stuff—will be done by the planning and infrastructure minister, but I am happy to take anything on board.

If the member has any examples of councils that may have a concern, bearing in mind any council that applies for any grants whatsoever is going to increase the value of all its assets, which then impacts, as he says and quite rightly, the depreciation costs. Has the member any examples of councils that may have brought it to his attention? I am happy to take that on board after this meeting.

Mr TELFER: Any council that has received funds to put infrastructure in that were not already accommodated in their long-term financial plan, any of those would have an impact on their capital over and above what their long-term financial plan would be, so there are a number.

I will carry on, if you like. Obviously, you have not quantified any of those potential rate increases, so I will not ask that question.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

Mr TELFER: Exactly. Minister, can I turn to one of the local government reforms. It is obviously something which is within the remit of the minister. Are you aware about the arrangements ESCOSA are developing at the moment for the statutory requirement?

Ms HOOD: Reference, please.

Mr TELFER: It is the local government broadly as a whole. I can also point out in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 182, the specific process that—

The CHAIR: Page?

Mr TELFER: Page 182. This is around the ESCOSA management processes.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Can you repeat the budget paper?

Mr TELFER: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 182, about the local government impacts on the ESCOSA review process.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That is not through my area; it is through the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, if the member has any examples, I can take that on notice and get back to the member.

Mr TELFER: Perhaps the question I will ask is: in noting that ESCOSA is an independent statutory body, has the minister provided any feedback or guidance to ESCOSA as to some of the parameters of the scope of review proposed in their draft framework and approach?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am just a bit confused about whether that is a question that relates to the Office of Local Government.

Mr TELFER: It is in your role as Minister for Local Government in an area of local government reform, which is a key target area, which you have highlighted within the papers on page 143 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am happy to have a further discussion with the member on that one. I think it is a mixture between two roles, but I certainly have a lot of communication with relevant ministers. I am happy to have a discussion with the member later to clarify that and get back to this committee later.

Mr TELFER: This is specifically around that top dot point, that your targets 'continue the implementation of local government reforms'. This is a key aspect of the reform. I was just asking whether the minister has provided any feedback or direction to ESCOSA as to some of the parameters of the scope of review proposed in their draft framework and approach.

The CHAIR: I am trying to understand your question, member.

Mr TELFER: I am sure the minister does.

The CHAIR: The question is—and you have referred to page 182?

Mr TELFER: No, I have now referred back because I did not want to confuse the minister. It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 143, under targets 2022-23. The top dot point is to 'continue the implementation of local government reforms'. A key local government reform is around the ESCOSA draft framework and approach. I asked whether the minister has provided any feedback or guidance to ESCOSA as to some of the parameters of the scope of review proposed in their draft framework and approach.

Ms STINSON: Point of order, Mr Chair: the budget line that is referred to comes under ESCOSA, which is a budget line that has already been before estimates and there have already been questions taken on it. Although the member may quite rightly be pointing out something that is of general importance to the area of local government, these estimates have to be related to a particular budget line to do with local government. I would ask that that question is ruled out of order. Maybe question time might be a better place for that question.

The CHAIR: I am happy to allow the question if the member can provide a specific program or project which ESCOSA will be undertaking which will impact directly on local government.

Mr TELFER: I have removed the bit that the member for Badcoe was concerned about because I did not want to have any ambiguity. A key aspect—

The CHAIR: I am still failing to understand the point.

Mr TELFER: A key aspect of the implementation of the local government reforms was the development and implementation of an ESCOSA draft framework and approach for management of council finances. This is specific around that. Has the minister provided any feedback or guidance to ESCOSA as to some of the parameters of that scope of review proposed in their draft framework and approach?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I know that the ESCOSA report has now been made public, but the principal location for this is the Local Government Association. I encourage the Local Government Association to engage closely with ESCOSA on this and the method that it proposes to use to provide advice to councils. Again, I am happy to take that question on notice and get back not only to the estimates committee but also to the member.

Mr TELFER: Further to that then, is the minister aware of the concerns of local government and the Local Government Association about the breadth of the review process which ESCOSA is proposing and which is going to put what the LGA says is an undue extra cost onto councils because of the process they have proposed?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that ESCOSA are a statutory authority, and they are liaising directly with the Local Government Association and all councils. Again, I reiterate that councils have their own direction. They have to tell the LGA what they want and what their concerns are. Certainly, I encourage all councils to engage constructively with ESCOSA as the new scheme is implemented. I am certainly very happy to take up further discussion with the LGA to find out whether there are more serious concerns about that.

As I said, I am happy to take that on notice and provide any further information. I am happy to have a dialogue with the member any time at all for him to understand a little more. I will be able to get some more information from the LGA for my own perspective. I encourage the LGA to liaise with ESCOSA and particularly with all councils because the LGA is the parent body representing all councils in South Australia.

The CHAIR: You have an answer; next question.

Mr TELFER: I am well and truly ready for the next question. We spent too much time on that one. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 143. Can I get an insight into the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission? Has there been any change in allocation of funds to South Australia from the federal government—which are distributed by the grants commission—because of methodology implications? Has there been any change in the allocation?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised by both my advisers that we have had no advice of any changes at all at this time, but again I am happy to take that on notice to get more clarification and information.

Mr TELFER: What is the expected workload output of the South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission for 2022-23? Has there been any change in allocation of funds towards the boundaries commission?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission is the independent body that assesses and investigates proposals for changes to council boundaries and makes recommendations to the minister in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999. I am sure that the member is aware of this.

Since its commencement on 1 January 2019, the commission has received a number of proposals that it is currently working through in accordance with this process. These include significant proposals from the Town of Gawler and the Campbelltown City Council. These are the ones that I have been advised of.

If these proposals proceed to an inquiry, the inquiry will be undertaken by a team of investigators appointed by the commission and paid for by the initiating council in accordance with the act. When the inquiry is complete, the commission will provide me with a report with their recommendations for any changes. These reports must also be publicly released on the commission's website. The commission is also currently undertaking an inquiry into the publicly initiated proposal to alter the boundaries of the Copper Coast Council and the Barunga West Council near Tickera.

As minister, I have no role in the process to consider boundary changes until such time as the commission makes the recommendations to me at the end of its inquiries. As I say, I think this system going forward will help any opportunities for adjustments of council boundaries if it is required by the community and the commissioner.

Mr TELFER: The question was: has there been any change in the allocation of funds towards the boundaries commission?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that, no, there has not. The other thing is that, as I said a minute ago, any costs involved with the commission will be recovered as part of the boundary changes from the council that initiates. I indicated a bit earlier that the commissioner will give me a report, and before councils initiate or proceed any further they need to be advised by the commissioner of the cost factor. Whatever the cost involved, it will be borne by the council initiating the opportunity for a council boundary change.

Mr TELFER: Have there been any efficiency dividends placed on the delivery of municipal services in the Aboriginal communities program?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the grants are in the forward estimates. There have been no changes and it is just a normal thing of the CPI. The Treasury indication, to my information, is that other than the CPI increases there are no changes.

Mr TELFER: Have there been any efficiency dividends or changes to the Outback Communities Authority budget?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that, yes, the Treasurer has put some savings there, but they are working through that at the moment. For the member's information and for other members here, the OCA is in the process of that responsibility coming from the Department for Infrastructure, coming across to the Office of Local Government. Again, the departments are working very closely together and, as soon as that information is available, I am happy to bring that back to this committee or through the process and also happy to liaise directly with the member concerned to make certain that we have all this information there.

Mr TELFER: Do you have any insight into what these efficiency dividends are going to mean for outcomes for the OCA?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No. At this particular point I have had no indication. As I said a couple of minutes ago, both the AGD and the departments are working through that at the moment but, to answer the question, I have no information at this particular point.

Mr TELFER: That information would be very valuable to you as the member for Stuart, I am sure. Have you received a report from the Outback Futures Project?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Outback Communities Authority (OCA) has focused on the delivery of the Outback Futures Project, which is to determine the needs and aspirations of outback communities and how these will be best supported in the longer term. The OCA provided the Outback Futures Report, which I have received, to the previous government in December 2021 and released the report publicly in late January 2022.

Recently, I was pleased to receive the final recommendations from the OCA on the culmination of this work. I really cannot express all my appreciation for all the recommendations the OCA has made that resulted from extensive engagement with outback residents and stakeholders. I had discussions about this report already with many people in the outback, in Blinman and Yunta and other locations, while visiting as the local member.

The report gives a comprehensive picture of the issues facing people living in the outback and the challenges in providing services and support to our most remote communities. The government is considering its response to the OCA's final recommendations and will respond in due course, noting the importance of this decision for the future of our outback communities.

I am a great supporter of the OCA, and I think they have done a fantastic job. We have a few challenges going forward, but certainly I am happy to look at this futures report and to have a close liaison with the shadow minister. Just because I am the minister does not mean I have all the information. I am very happy to communicate and consult with the shadow to make certain we can get the best opportunities. I encourage the shadow and others in this house to suggest anything that will improve the conditions of people in the outback, which can be considered in addition to the futures report.

The CHAIR: The time allocated for the examination of this line has expired. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and Administered Items for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport complete and refer the proposed payments to committee B for further examination. I thank the minister and his advisers and thank the members of the committee.

Sitting suspended from 15:17 to 15:30.