Attorney-General's Department, $109,934,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department $51,535,00

Membership:

Hon. S.S. Marshall substituted for Mr Teague.

Ms Thompson substituted for Mr Odenwalder.

Mr Cowdrey substituted for Mr Tarzia.

Minister:

Hon. K.J. Maher, Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Ms N. Saunders, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms K. Parker, Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: I open the portfolio for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. The minister appearing is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I advise that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination. I now call on the minister to make some opening comments and to introduce his advisers. I will then invite the lead speaker for the opposition to make an opening statement and ask questions as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I indicated earlier this morning, I do not intend to make opening portfolio statements. I am keen to have as much time as possible for questions. I will introduce the new crew we have with us now. On my right is Ms Nerida Saunders, the Executive Director of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. On my left is Ms Kirstie Parker, the Director at Aboriginal Affairs, and on my far left remaining with us is Ms Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department. Behind us as always is Andrew Swanson from the Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I need to leave the chamber for a few moments, and the member for Mawson will be the Acting Chair for a few moments.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will just make my introductory remarks. First of all, can I acknowledge this morning that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people. We acknowledge their ongoing spiritual relationship with this land.

It is wonderful to be in this chamber, especially because we have both the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags here in this chamber. That was done without any controversy in the South Australian parliament, unlike in other parliaments. It was actually at the instigation of the previous Speaker, who is now the shadow attorney-general and the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, Josh Teague, who unfortunately cannot be here because for some reason they have scheduled other portfolios he has at exactly the same time, so you are stuck with me.

I also would like to offer my congratulations to the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation in South Australia. This is the second time he has held this portfolio, which is quite unusual. Often in the South Australian parliament, this is a role that has been one that is a stepping stone to other roles. It has traditionally been given to a reasonably junior member of the cabinet, so now to have the Attorney-General in that role I think is a positive move for us. I have a series of pretty straightforward questions. Would you like me to begin now?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon L.W.K. Bignell): Yes, thank you, member for Dunstan.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: All my questions relate to the statements you are going to have in front of you, Agency Statement Volume 1, pages 14, 15 and 16, which relate to all the things you could imagine.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is right, I presume.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And page numbers in particular?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Pages 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. It is just a series of papers. It is nothing in particular. There is no specific reference, over and above that you have mentioned in those papers that you are going to be consulting with Aboriginal people about the Voice to the South Australian parliament. Can you provide some overview on that? In particular, when will that consultation begin, who will lead that consultation and when is it likely to be concluded?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for this question. We have started work already. There have been discussions and work that have commenced already in terms of different models in different areas of Australia and indeed other jurisdictions in relation to Indigenous peoples' participation in democracy and how that might inform a Voice.

There have been discussions held with those who have been involved, particularly federally, in the dialogues that have led up to the Uluru Statement and in the development of work since. We anticipate there will be in the not too distant future, and certainly within the next couple of months, an outline of a process in terms of consultations for Voice. We anticipate having something to develop further sometime next year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But specifically when will the consultation begin? Do you have a time frame?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We would anticipate in the next few months.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In the next few months to begin, and when would it conclude?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, we would hope that we will have consultations conducted and something concluded sometime next year. If we can do it in a manner that brings it forward, we will try to do that. As I know the member is keenly aware, there is a balancing act in relation to not only moving quickly on something but also allowing sufficient time for proper consultation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For clarity, it is going to start in the coming months and conclude next year, the consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We would hope to have something finalised sometime next year. That is what we are aiming for.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Also, who will lead that consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That will be announced in the coming months.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is it likely that the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement would conduct that consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, that will be announced in the not too distant future, in the coming months.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In terms of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, when does the current term of that commissioner conclude?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that concludes at the end of this financial year, so discussions are being held about that role at the moment.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: So the current commissioner could be extended or a new commissioner appointed; that is yet to be determined?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Those discussions are being held at the moment.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You are aware that legislation was introduced into the parliament in October last year, following more than two years' consultation on a Voice to Parliament. My understanding is that the shadow minister will introduce that as a private member's bill, or maybe already has introduced it as a private member's bill, but is it the government's position that it would not support that, waiting for the further consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, we will do our own work on this.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But you do appreciate that that means there will be a further very significant hiatus in the establishment of that Voice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One thing we do appreciate, which I think has been outlined, is that on the actual legislation there was a total of nine days' consultation on the previous legislation. We will do our own work. There has been a fair bit of commentary on the previous legislation that I think was regarded more as a voice to a committee of parliament, rather than a Voice to Parliament.

We will certainly be doing our own work, but I do acknowledge that there has been work done on this and I do acknowledge not just the member for Dunstan but other members of his team who broadly support not all tenets of the Uluru Statement but at least the Voice part of it, so the work that has been done will be taken into account in what we are doing.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But just to be clear, your Voice to Parliament would be an instrument of the parliament, so it would require legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the expectation I think that most people have, yes.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But the likelihood is that this would not be introduced this year; it would have to be next year because you are not concluding the consultation until next year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We would hope the process will be concluded sometime next year. Depending on how the consultation goes this year, we will see what date we will look at once that concludes and once the plan is conducted. One thing I am not going to do is to commit to a very specific month when something will or will not be done. As I think is proper to do, we will look at the balance between moving effectively and efficiently and making sure people are consulted and brought along with this.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Obviously, the previous legislation introduced in October last year did not get to the Legislative Council; it was only in this chamber. The then opposition spokesperson said that the major criticism of the Voice in that document was the lack of consultation on the legislation itself. Is there anything specific that the now government has as a failure of that original model that had been put forward?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a copy with me, so I will not go into detail. One of the concerns that had been raised was a model where it is an appointed model, so it starts out as a model, an Aboriginal voice, but is appointed by the government of the day. Other concerns were raised about how it interacts with parliament. Concerns were raised that it appeared that it interacted with a committee of parliament and then that committee interacted with parliament. So, whilst we will look to see what parts of it may be appropriate going forward, I think these were some of the concerns that were originally raised with the previous model.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Will you continue the practice of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement presenting his annual report on the floor of the house?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note the initiative of the former government for the commissioner to report to parliament. That will all be taken into consideration with how any new body, as part of the Voice model, interacts with parliament.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If your Voice is not interacting with a committee, do you envisage that there would be members who became voting members of this chamber?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is not something that we have contemplated, and I am not aware that that is a contemplation of those who are looking at the Uluru Statement, but regarding the mechanism of how a voice provides to parliament, I think that most of the discussion and commentary and thinking around this so far have been an advisory voice to parliament.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Will you keep the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, that will depend on the model that we eventually come up with.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, in the interim. Will the existing South Australian—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have no intention to alter the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council. I can remember that it was set up when I first started working in Aboriginal affairs and that was when ATSIC was dissolved 15 or 20 years ago in South Australia. The South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council was an initiative of the Mike Rann Labor government to have a voice for Aboriginal people for the government of South Australia.

Of course, ATSIC was formed under commonwealth legislation and provided significant commonwealth functions. It was a useful voice and a useful way to interact and understand the views for governments at all levels. I am not going to say Aboriginal people as a whole because of course any sort of elected or representative body cannot ever purport to represent the views of everybody as a whole, but it was certainly a view of Aboriginal people within South Australia.

The South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council has had a long history since ATSIC—I am guessing about 15 years—and going forward we will have to look at whatever mechanism we have in terms of what a voice provides and its interaction or otherwise with an advisory council, but we have no intentions of changing that while we are continuing towards a voice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As you would appreciate, the tenure of the existing members was extended and extended, and I think it was extended again under the previous government simply because of the delays in bringing the legislation to parliament. Is it your intention to continue to extend it or to appoint a new South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take advice and turn my mind to that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that term is also coming to an end reasonably soon. Is it the intention of the government that the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council will continue to meet with cabinet on a twice-yearly basis?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is something we will look at and make a decision on. I know my colleagues have spoken of how we are now in a fortunate position where we do not just have a group that comes to cabinet a couple of times a year but, as an Aboriginal person and as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General, we have an Aboriginal person around the cabinet table every time a cabinet decision is made.

I think there were some good initiatives that the former government had taken. Aboriginal affairs is, in my view, why I got into parliament. It was the driving area that gave me an interest in representative democracy. There are ideas that come forward from all sides of politics, not just Labor and Liberal but the Greens and otherwise, that are worthy, so that is something that we will look at.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would like to move on to Treaty and truth telling, which is also referenced in your budget papers. In fact, one of your targets for 2022-23 is to explore mechanisms to underpin a Treaty process and a truth-telling process. Is it your view that the Voice to Parliament will precede the Treaty process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of sequencing, that is something that there has been quite a bit of discussion and thought about. I think it is fair to say that most of those who were involved in the dialogues leading up to the Uluru Statement and since have thought that the most logical and beneficial way of sequencing is Voice first, followed by the other two. Of course, Voice can help inform other things that you do. There is a fair bit of logical sense to that.

Our intention is to get started initially along those lines with Voice, but that does not mean that we will not be looking at the other aspects of the two other tenets of the Uluru Statement, the Treaty and Truth components, as we are doing that. Certainly what the government is prioritising at the moment is the Voice element.

Just more broadly—it is probably a question you are going to ask in terms of Treaty—something we are looking is how we recommence the Treaty process. Of course, under the former Labor government, as the member for Dunstan pointed out, I had the honour of serving in the role four years ago. We started a Treaty process in South Australia that, at the time was an Australian first.

We started the Treaty process in discussions and negotiations with Aboriginal nations. In the intervening four years, other jurisdictions around Australia have made movement, and some very significant movement, in relation to this area. I think it is fair to say Victoria now well and truly leads the nation in terms of where they are up to in many areas—and they started before the Uluru Statement was handed down—that the Uluru Statement touches upon, including Treaty.

There are now Treaty processes underway in I think both Queensland and the Northern Territory. In New South Wales now, certainly the Labor opposition has an ambition towards Treaty. One of the elements that we are seeing is increasing bipartisan support. Only in recent weeks the Victorian opposition in the Victorian parliament has had a change in policy position to support what the Victorian government is doing. As I said, it started before the Uluru Statement, but in terms of the Voice and Treaty and the truth-telling process, it is already underway in Victoria.

Whilst superficially it might seem attractive to start Treaty where we left off four years ago, not only have circumstances changed in South Australia but a lot more work has been done around Australia that requires some pretty close examination of where we go from here with this.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In those jurisdictions that you just referenced, they are actually starting with Treaty, not with Voice, but here in South Australia you will be starting with Voice and moving to Treaty.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Victoria has a legislated the First Peoples' Assembly, a partly elected, partly representative groups model. I think the ACT has for some time had their own version of Voice. Jurisdictions are doing it differently, that is true, but certainly, as I understand it—and I am happy to go back and double-check that I have understood it correctly—Victoria started with that First Peoples' Assembly before moving on to the Truth and Treaty parts.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: When you were last in government, the Treaty process model was for individual treaties with individual nations, starting with the Narungga nation and the Buthera Agreement. Will that be the approach?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I outlined in my answer to the last question, a lot has changed since then, not only in terms of the South Australian landscape but in terms of where Treaty thoughts and discussions are up to around the rest of Australia. As I said in my answer, I think, two questions ago, superficially it might seem that we just take up exactly where we left off four years ago, but I do not think (a) it is as easy as that or (b) that that is a sensible starting point to look at.

Certainly the experience from four years ago, with the consultation undertaken—I think it was the largest consultation the state government had ever undertaken with Aboriginal people in South Australia—was that for a South Australian model, the way forward that was suggested as a result of the consultation was looking at those agreements and discussions with individual nations as a starting point. I do not think there was ever a contemplation that would necessarily be the end point.

I think Victoria are starting with a broader agreement—it gets complicated and difficult, as this area of public policy always is—and broader discussions in relation to a statewide agreement with Aboriginal Victorians. That was something that had been contemplated before, not only a state to Aboriginal nations discussion and negotiated agreement but also whether there is something that overlays that as well. That is certainly something we will be looking at as we move forward with this.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Whilst you say this is something you are going to look at, do you think it is likely that there will be a whole-of-state Treaty or a continuation of the individual nation treaties, or is it just too early to say?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is too early to say, but I do not think it is necessarily a binary choice, as in it will only be one or it will only be the other. Some suggestions that have come forward as this has developed around Australia include a model where there are agreements with individual nations, either a set of principles or another guiding framework generally, with Aboriginal people of that jurisdiction.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: How many nations are there in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Somewhere in the 20s are currently recognised as nations in South Australia is my advice.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I was once told off by somebody who suggested there were 47. I did not ask them what all the 47 were, but you are suggesting it is more in the 20s?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the advice I have. The classification of nations is a construct we put on Aboriginal people and groups. There are groups within groups, and our idea of nations is not necessarily Aboriginal people's idea of nations, or even the same notion of nation that Aboriginal people from different parts of South Australia—and indeed of Australia—would have. I think it is a colonial construct to say that there are this many groups, this is how many there are, just as we have seen in some of the early and developing maps of Aboriginal groups and nations.

As we like to do, as people in government and as legislators, and also as those who colonised this nation like to do, we try to put definitive boundaries on and the same constructs on, but it does not always work and it is not necessarily always helpful. I think that, as the member is alluding to, to put that this is a definitive number, and that is how it is and everyone needs to understand it, is not necessarily particularly helpful.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In reality there could be dozens and dozens of agreements plus potentially an overarching treaty to be negotiated by a group yet to be determined, following the Voice consultations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There could be many agreements. One thing that became very apparent in the work that was done before the 2018 state election was that while there are some things that different nations have in common, in terms of their wishes from government and how they interact with government, there are certainly differences in those. South Australia, in particular, is a very diverse sort of place: you go from Port MacDonnell to Pipalyatjara, between the two corners, and all points in between and otherwise. It is a very, very diverse state.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What is the budget for the treaty process over the forward estimates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The initial budget to start the administration of this project I think is half a million dollars a year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: How will that be spent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is being determined at the moment as we determine the way forward with the initial consultation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But that is for personnel to restart the process rather than payments to individual nations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I cannot imagine a full and final treaty process occurring in this term of government necessarily. In other areas around the world where there have been attempts—and some have worked very well—to retrofit what should have happened a couple of hundred years ago, it has taken years. I think in British Columbia it took more than a decade for some of this work.

When in opposition, the former Treasurer (Hon. Rob Lucas) would ask a series of questions about how much compensation and what would be paid. During negotiations last time, that was not a high-order matter. There were a lot of other things that were more important than a sum of money for compensation. Again, this is a particularly complex area of public policy and one that is very difficult, but in my mind it shows why it is so important.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you imagine people's scepticism, though, because in the last term of government the Buthera Agreement was really negotiated in an extraordinarily short time frame? In fact, the previous government received advice from the commissioner for treaty in July 2017 that really Voice should precede the negotiation. The government of the day said, 'No, we would like to begin the negotiations for the Buthera Agreement by the end of 2017.' In fact, the Buthera Agreement was signed before the March 2018 election, so this was an agreement that was signed in a matter of months.

You are now telling this committee here today that first of all we are going to continue consultation on Voice starting in the next couple of months and hopefully concluding next year, that we will then introduce legislation and that body will be auspiced with conducting future negotiations, whether it be with individual nations or collectively, and that over the forward estimates there is only half a million a year. It does not provide much hope for many nations that the treaty process is going to have a deliverable outcome for them even over a four-year process when the Buthera Agreement was done in a matter of just a few months.

The CHAIR: I am not clear what the question was.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can attempt to answer it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was at the very beginning. I said, 'Do you appreciate the scepticism?' and then I went on to provide the background.

The CHAIR: So you are asking for the minister's opinion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I do not because large parts of that question were a complete mischaracterisation of things I have said. I think the member has attempted to mischaracterise it as a definitive statement, that whatever body is set up as a voice will necessarily be the one conducting, and only the one conducting, any further negotiation on anything like Treaty. One of the reasons I do not accept it is because of the mischaracterisations the member has engaged in in relation to his explanation to the question.

Also, in relation to the past history of these discussions, if my memory serves me correctly I think it was the end of 2016 that the then Weatherill government outlined an ambition to start Treaty discussions, which of course preceded the Uluru Statement in May 2017. The idea that there was some sort of sequencing that was misapplied I think either deliberately or accidentally misunderstands where we were at that time. As I said, the ambition for Treaty started in 2016 and the Uluru Statement was in May 2017.

In relation to discussions and negotiations that took place after an expression of interest process with three Aboriginal nations at the time, the one that got furthest along the process was with the Narungga nation with the Buthera Agreement. That was not and never was purported to be a full and final settlement of Treaty issues, but it was the first stage in Treaty discussions. I think at the time it was the first time any sort of agreement along the process of Treaty had been signed. I do not accept that people will be sceptical, partly because I do not think the facts in the question were stated correctly.

I think we are now seeing, right around Australia and federally, a move towards agreement-making, as was outlined in the Uluru Statement. That ambition of Treaty will be understood differently by different people in different parts of Australia. I think it is a reasonable one. I think one of the great benefits of the statement from Uluru, that gift that was provided by Aboriginal Australia to the nation, is the simplicity and the gentleness of what was suggested.

Even the word 'treaty' was not used in the statement; it was 'agreement-making'. For us, as policymakers, to ignore that and refuse to abide by the generosity and gentleness of what has been suggested I think would be a grave mistake.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Could you provide some hope for nations with regard to Treaty in terms of the ultimate time frame for negotiation and settlement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I think that would be a rather foolish thing to do—to tell all nations in South Australia, 'By this date, you will have full and final settlement of Treaty.' One of the things that I think was also clear was that this may be a process, and will likely be a process, where things can develop over time. If the member is suggesting we should set down a hard date, by a certain time in a certain year, and that is it—everything has to be signed and nothing will ever be changed—I think that would be a great disappointment to Aboriginal people in South Australia.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am certainly not suggesting that, but there is nothing in the forward estimates talking about financial moneys to individual nations; it is more the admin to set it up. As I was saying before, the Buthera Agreement was signed in pretty quick order and millions of dollars flowed to the Narungga nation. You said there were two other nations that bid for that. There are at least dozens of other nations that are saying, 'When is our turn?'

I just wonder whether there can be not full and final—but do you have any sort of time frame that would provide hope to those nations, many of whom have been waiting for some time? Of course, the government has now made this commitment to Treaty.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can tell you what I can provide hope for—that we will engage in Treaty discussions. I tell you what does not provide hope: when a government changes and says that Treaty is a cruel hoax. That does not provide hope. We are committed to Treaty.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Buthera Agreement has been extended by the previous government. I think there are a further 12 months remaining.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The terms of the agreement? All terms of the agreement or funding for the agreement or the department's interactions with parts of the agreement? I am just trying to understand the question from the member. Is it his contention that the whole agreement was to come to an end?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. The previous Weatherill Labor government signed the agreement I think in March 2018. It was a three-year agreement. It was extended but at a lower dollar value per year for a shorter period of time—I think two years, so that would be coming up now. Is it the expectation or the intention of the new government to further extend the Buthera Agreement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will look for that. I will double-check and look for an answer. I think what the member is referring to is some of the funding for the agreement. There were many other elements of the agreement that relate to how departments interact with the Narungga nation. There is scheduled funding for the agreement, I am advised, that occurs over the next two financial years.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you tell me when that funding runs out?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice currently is that there is a forward provision for funding at this stage until the end of the 2023-24 financial year.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: So until June 2024, the Buthera Agreement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice. That is funding for administration. I will double-check, but I do not think that means every tenet of the agreement falls over at that date.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. Is it the intention, or is it too early to say, that continued financial support for the Buthera Agreement—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will have to have a look at all elements of what we do. One of the other things that was discontinued, with the previous change in government in 2018, is the regional authorities policy that provided, I think, very good and in some ways world-leading development for nations' governance. There are a whole range of elements we will be looking at, and one of those we will necessarily look at is how nations can be involved in agreements. It should be pointed out that Narungga have well-placed ambition for income sources.

Since becoming minister a few months ago, I have been fortunate to visit, as I have many times, Yorke Peninsula, the Point Pearce community and other areas of the Yorke Peninsula. I have to say that I am impressed with some of the work that has already been undertaken, and some of it has been the result of the Buthera Agreement.

I will criticise when I think it is warranted, but I will congratulate when I think it is warranted as well. I have criticised the stopping of the treaty process, but credit is warranted to the former government for abiding by the terms of the agreement that was already signed. I think some of the terms of the agreement that was already signed have helped with the anticipation of future income sources for Narungga.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I think that they have done an extraordinary job over there, especially Wardang Island and some of the work they have done with the fisheries agreement with PIRSA. Just to be very clear, I would say that the previous Liberal government and the current Labor government are almost in sync with our views with regard to Treaty because you have now acknowledged that Voice should precede Treaty. I think that is exactly the position the former Liberal government had.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I want to be clear, to put this on record. The former Liberal government thought—without anything else, without qualifying anything else—and I will quote, that Treaty was a 'cruel hoax'. This government does not.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think there is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is a very, very big difference.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think there is, if I can be very clear—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the member—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and I will just finish the sentence. I do not think they were taken in context. We pushed ahead very significantly, the previous government, with Voice, and it seems to me that is exactly the position. You are not going back to the old model of individual negotiations with individual nations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the member is outlining a change in policy of the Liberal Party of South Australia, which he seems to be, that the Liberal Party of South Australia now is fully supportive of Treaty in South Australia, I thank him for that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, no, I just do not think—

The CHAIR: Can I just—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is a welcome development from the Liberal Party.

The CHAIR: I just remind—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Like the Liberal opposition have in Victoria, they have changed their mind. They did not support Treaty and they now do, and I thank the member for Dunstan for announcing the change in policy on behalf of the parliamentary Liberal Party to now support Treaty.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is pretty juvenile to be making those comments

The CHAIR: I would just remind members—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was all going so well until that really juvenile comment.

The CHAIR: Member for Dunstan, I have the floor. I just remind members this is a question and answer session, not a debate. I ask that the process be respected and that questions to the minister come through me, and responses equally. Member for Dunstan, do you have a question?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I hope people were listening in on that exchange. Can we move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 18 and 19 on Aboriginal monuments. Who will lead the consultation to identify those to be commemorated?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. That is something the department and I are having discussions about at the moment, about how that process is led. There is some work to do here, not just in terms of who are commemorated in those monuments, because of course that will require some significant input from the Aboriginal community in South Australia, but also how that is done, where monuments are placed and how we best celebrate Aboriginal achievement in South Australia.

It is something that has been a great stain on us as a country and as a state, that we celebrate so much of the last 200 years of our history in those monuments we see around South Australia and so very little of the tens of thousands of years of history before that and also so very little of the significant Aboriginal contributions that have happened during the time we have erected a whole lot of the other monuments.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Who will lead that consultation? The department—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, we are working through that with the department now about how that will work.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is it the government's intention to honour the early negotiations of the previous government with regard to Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are working through our future policy and how any commitments that have been made in the past might inform that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is the money that is included in the budget over the next two years—$1 million over two years—for the consultation, the design and the erection of monuments, or just the consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, it is a starting point for all those processes, as I think the policy outlines. We are looking to collaborate, firstly, with local councils and, secondly, with philanthropic individuals, organisations or companies to make sure that we are doing as well as possible and that we use the funds that we have as effectively, efficiently and to a wider audience as we possibly can.

One thing that impressed me very recently was the opening of a monument and memorial on the banks of Lake Bonney in Barmera for Aunty Ruby Hunter and Uncle Archie Roach. It was quite a remarkable story. It was wholly funded by the Blundstone corporation of Tasmania. The chief executive of Blundstone of Tasmania was there at the opening—as was I—a couple of months ago.

This executive had been listening to a national radio program when someone from the Barmera community was talking about wanting to have this recognition and they were looking to raise funds. The executive from Blundstone then went to his board and said, 'I think we should do this.' There was no connection between a manufacturer of footwear in Tasmania and Barmera in South Australia, but the executive heard this, thought it was the right thing to do, wanted to get behind it and this monument was funded by Blundstone of Tasmania.

I think that there is an appetite and a desire for corporate Australia to start sharing the load in reconciliation and being a part of these things. That is something that we will be looking at as well. That story from my attendance for the unveiling at Barmera has really given me cause for optimism about what we might be able to do with this policy into the future.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You are committed to spending the $1 million for the design and delivery of the monuments. They will mark six Aboriginal leaders from South Australia, and the consultation will be determined over the coming months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can we move on to discussing Tauondi college. In the lead-up to the election the previous government committed to transferring ownership of the land and all the buildings of Tauondi college at Port Adelaide. Can you provide this committee with an updated schedule of progress on that project?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Prior to the state election, there had been discussions both with Tauondi and other organisations, including the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, about the possibility of transferring ownership. I know that discussions have occurred in the months since the election for the possible transfer and also other needs for Tauondi college. Tauondi college had received block funding from the government to provide educational services and, quite frankly, a community hub for the Aboriginal community in South Australia.

Tauondi college was established in 1973, which is the same year, I think, the ALRM became incorporated. I remember these things only because that was the same year I was born. Tauondi was born the same year I was and is one of only a couple of institutions in Australia of its type to have matured and developed over that age.

Unfortunately, that block funding for Tauondi college was removed. I know that a lot of work is going on—at a departmental level particularly—about how we can assist Tauondi to survive into the future, and certainly one of those elements has been discussions about leveraging land ownership. I do not have the figure, but some millions of dollars is the value placed on the building and land at Tauondi. Certainly, what we are investigating is the possibility of that transfer to Aboriginal ownership and control and if that can leverage further funds.

Organisations like the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation have a very proud and strong history of not just being involved in the purchase of assets but then being able to help with the ongoing running of certain ventures. Some of the obvious ones are many of the tourism ventures that we see around Australia that the ILSC have been involved in. We are continuing to explore what possibilities there are for Tauondi college, which, as I say, is frighteningly close to celebrating their 50^th birthday.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just to be clear, though, prior to the election the government did say that they would transfer this property at a value of $4 million. That probably would not happen through your department anyway. I presume it is another department that owns the building, but what you are saying is you are not aware of any progress to date, but it might be wrapped up in a larger negotiation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand, but I will go away and check if I need to provide any further information. I understand that there has been consideration work done on this. I think there are discussions that involve that but, further than that, about what different departments do in relation to the work Tauondi college does.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is it possible that you would take on notice when the transfer is likely to occur and what the value is going to be?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If those are able to be answered, if there is some sort of date being worked towards or as firm as it can be, I am happy to take those on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Also, you mentioned in your previous answer about the block funding being removed. Is it the intention of the government to put that block funding back in place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been involved in a couple of conversations with Tauondi. These are things Tauondi has put to the government. I am not aware that a decision has been made in relation to—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —the restoration of the block funding.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, but again I will double-check and if there is an answer I can bring it back.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Also, the previous government suggested that the advice we had received from Treasury is that in fact the value of that asset transfer would be in excess of $8 million, so could you just take that on board.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. Governments tend to have better and more updated information than oppositions, so I think—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, we provided it to the opposition at the time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the member is right. I think there was a suggestion of $4 million, but I am happy to go and check to see whether there is a further and better, now in government, estimate of that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: When the transfer is made, is it going to come with an annual further allocation? At the moment that property is owned by the government and of course the depreciation is borne by the government; the maintenance, rates, taxes, everything is borne by the government. Once the transfer is effected, there would be hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenses that would go to Tauondi each year. So will there be a further transfer of an annual grant to meet those costs, in addition to the property transfer circa $8 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take those questions on notice and bring back a reply, and also the interaction of those things with an organisation like the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: With regard to APY matters mentioned in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, pages 18 and 19, obviously, as you would be more than aware, it is the APY's responsibility, the executive board's responsibility, to appoint the general manager, but obviously the conditions of the appointment are approved by the minister. Has the minister had discussions with the current general manager, Mr King, since coming to office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My recollection is I have had one meeting with representatives of APY that has included Mr King since coming to office.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: When does Mr King's term expire?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will give you how I understand it, and if there are significant differences, I am happy to bring it back. My understanding is that the three-year term that he was appointed—and I presume the member would have approved the terms and conditions the last time—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —as I think I did the first time, so there was an involvement from both of us on this. My understanding is that the three-year term has expired. The resolution as it stands, as I understand, with the APY Executive is for, in effect, an extension of that appointment for a six-month period while a review is undertaken. My understanding is that there has been a consultant out of Western Australia who has been hired to undertake the review of the general manager position and performance.

I can give you some further and better information, rather than just go from memory. On 9 April 2022, the employment contract for Mr Richard King expired. The APY Executive Board, I am informed, has reappointed Mr King for a six-month period while the review of his performance is undertaken.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The former government developed an Aboriginal action plan and published two of those. Is it the intention of the new government to continue with the existing action plan, and does the government have any plans to continue with a further action plan once this one is completed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As a government, we intend that departments will continue to undertake the work they do in Aboriginal affairs. I think in the former action plan—and I will check if things are correct—about two-thirds of the action items in the original action plan and most in the second action plan were things that government had been doing as a matter of course, brought together and collated in the one document.

We will consider whether we think it is necessary to bring stuff government is doing as a matter of course, and it was only some things government were doing. There is much more that government does in Aboriginal affairs that is not in the action plan. We will consider whether continuing to bring it all together in a document and having events around the document is our priority or whether we, in some other way, allow government departments to do what they do and how it is monitored.

In a sense, the new framework that includes, as the member would be aware, much more state buy-in in relation to the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan probably takes any plan the state government might do to another level and is probably a more significant way to measure the state government's progress in these things.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reason for the establishment of the whole-of-government action plan is that often it was very difficult for an individual minister to have effect, with your very small budget for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, over very complex areas affecting Aboriginal South Australians. That was the reason for trying to bring it together and have all of cabinet working in a consolidated way; whereas Closing the Gap is a refresh, which is strongly supported by South Australia. It deals with a pretty finite set of objectives. Is it the intention of the new government to continue with the comprehensive Aboriginal trainee program by placing 100 Aboriginal jobseekers into traineeships by the end of June next year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will double-check that. As the member probably experienced himself and I think as he alluded to in the statement he made, many of the levers for effecting change do not sit within your department—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —even as Premier or Attorney-General. Many of the levers do not sit within your department or direct control.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is why the action plan is quite helpful.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of traineeships, I am happy to check on that and bring back a reply.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would also be pleased if you could check on the progress of what proportion of Aboriginal people are working within SAPOL. It was a goal to get that to 2 per cent and I am just wondering whether that will remain as a goal of the new government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to check on the elements of where it is at the moment, in terms of the percentage of employment and also the status of the ambition of it as well.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: With regard to Aboriginal heritage, funding was provided in the 2021-22 budget—I appreciate that was before you came to government—to increase the capacity to undertake heritage assessments to support key projects that contribute to South Australia's overall economic growth. How many such assessments are now awaiting a decision by you, subject to section 23 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to funding that was provided for projects, I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But do you have decisions regarding section 23 of the act awaiting a decision from your office at the moment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not aware of any. I will check, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head that are with my office awaiting a decision at the moment. Certainly, I am aware that there are a number of consultations governed by section 12 of the 1988 Aboriginal Heritage Act that then inform decisions taken in relation to section 23 of the act that are ongoing at the moment. I am not aware that any are before me at the moment, but again I will double-check to see if that is correct. I know that a number are currently ongoing and in the consultation process that precedes a decision pursuant to section 23 of the act.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can you commit to undertaking to provide detail of the recipients of grants and subsidies under your portfolio? That is one of your largest items, so it would be good to get a list.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is this page—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is on Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 18 and 19.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is this page 19?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, page 19. It just has a consolidated number there.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do that and provide a breakdown. Off the top of my head, I think a number of those are not like a discretionary fund. They are grants that have been and continue to be provided in certain areas.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: ALRM and—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that the APY task force might be one of those.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a separate—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is the ALRM, ALT and other things, but I am happy to go back and provide a breakdown because, as I said, I do not think many of those, if any, are actually some sort of discretionary grant funding. Unfortunately, it tends to be premiers who have those sorts of discretionary funds, not mere ministers.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, it is good to be the Premier sometimes, when you can put money into it, which leads me to my next question: will the government be continuing its funding for the repatriation of Aboriginal remains?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I will take that on notice and have a look. I suspect that, if it continues on from the previous question, that may have been one that was a Premier's discretionary—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is funded out of the central agency. Is AARD remaining in the central agency?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In machinery of government changes, AARD will come over to the Attorney-General's Department, where the rest of my portfolio sits.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let's hope you have a large contingency as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to that, I will have to take that on notice and check. I will double-check, but my understanding is that there was a one-off payment for that project. There was not a continuing budget line, but I will check what the intention for that is in the future.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Certainly the previous government did commit to that ongoing process, realising that the costliest consultation was the first one to establish the protocols.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to go away to check what ongoing provision had been made in the previous budget for that. Another thing you learn, not being the Treasurer, is that you do not see all the ongoing budget lines, but I am happy to check what ongoing budget provision had been made in the forward estimates for that.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To be clear, I do not think there were any further applications for the funding for that, but what you are saying is that, if applications came in for repatriation, they would be considered by the new government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I understood what the member was saying, this was not a one-off payment and there were ongoing funds scheduled for this. We were talking about similar things. I am happy to go away and see where in the budget papers previously this has appeared and what ongoing funding there had been provision for.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To be clear, though, it was ad hoc, based upon applications at a time, rather than a funding line because it was envisaged this would be over a period of a decade.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can go and check. This will be helpful too: is it the member's understanding that there was a provision made in future years, or was this a one-off payment with an idea that there may be further applications—so no actual money for it, but we will consider it if it comes in?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: All previous applications for money had been met, but there were none pending. It is very difficult because some nations, now that the protocols have been established, have very low costs but still have consultation to do, and it could be several years until a further application comes. But just be hopeful to continue with that repatriation process. On a similar line—

The CHAIR: The allotted time for this examination has now expired. I declare the examination of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation portfolio complete.

Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 13:45.

Membership:

Mr Pederick substituted for Hon. S.S. Marshall.

Mr McBride substituted for Mr Basham.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms E. Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

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

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

Mr E. Brooks, Executive Director, IR and Policy, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms S. Willsmore, Chief Human Resources Officer, Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

The CHAIR: I open up the examination of the office for the public sector. The minister appearing is the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector and the estimate of payments is through the Attorney-General's Department. I advise that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination. I invite the minister to make an opening statement and introduce his advisers. I will then invite the lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Colton, to do the same. Minister, the floor is yours.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, sir. I will introduce the officers I have with me at the moment. To the right of me is Erma Ranieri, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. To my left is Elbert Brooks, Executive Director, Industrial Relations and Policy. Immediately behind me, joining us once again, are Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department, and Andrew Swanson, powering his way through his 24^th set of estimates. We also have Shelley Willsmore from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

As with the estimates from earlier in the day, I will not make any opening policy statement and I am happy to take questions.

Mr COWDREY: There is no opening statement from me. Perhaps I can start by drawing the minister's attention to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 64. There are very few references to the office, given it is an administered item. I will provide you with some forewarning that questions will be on this budget line, given that it is effectively the only one.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which budget line is it in particular?

Mr COWDREY: The Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. As I said, as an administered item there are very few references to the office, so all questions will be directed to this budget line.

I will give some background to the question. The table on page 64, providing additional information for Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, indicates a budgeted cut of close to $1 million in the financial year 2022-23 to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment compared with the estimated result for this financial year. Through the minister, can I ask the commissioner to explain how this cut will affect the functioning of her office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the member that the COVID mobilisation budget has been stopped, so the COVID mobilisation project budget has been cut, and that accounts for what we see in terms of the reduction in the financial year. I am advised that is the major reason for that.

Mr COWDREY: That accounts for the whole reduction?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that part of it is the COVID mobilisation service project and part of it is not having an I Work for SA—Your Voice Survey in that particular year. That accounts for the vast majority of what we see in terms of the reduction from the previous year.

Mr COWDREY: Has there been a savings task attributed to the office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As we go through the machinery of government changes, all agencies—and there are exceptions, and one of them that came up this morning was the Courts Administration Authority. That is in my portfolio and that does not have a savings target. I can also confirm that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment does not have a savings target either.

Mr COWDREY: It is quarantined as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no savings target for that office.

Mr COWDREY: So it has been quarantined, the same as the Courts Administration Authority?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was not one of the quarantined areas, such as courts, Health and others that were quarantined, but it does not have a savings target attributed to it. Areas were announced as quarantined from the government but other areas, such as agencies in which smaller offices sit, will attribute savings targets. It is up to each agency to decide how those savings targets are met. For the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, there is not a savings target attributed to it so any reduction there has nothing to do with the savings target, which I think is the question the member was getting to before.

Mr COWDREY: So the minister has made decisions in regard to what agencies or offices within his department are not going to be assigned a savings task, but in earlier questioning he refused to answer questions in regard to where savings tasks would be attributed. Is that not inconsistent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm that as machinery of government changes were made the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, when savings targets were allocated, did not sit within AGD: they sat within another department and were allocated savings targets from that department. Upon coming to AGD, it did not have a savings target associated with it.

Mr COWDREY: The Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment—correct me if I am wrong—was moved from Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I believe it was from within Treasury and Finance and then it came over to here.

Mr COWDREY: The commissioner's 2021 State of the Sector report indicated some encouraging trends. Can I perhaps ask the commissioner if she can advise of any updates on the following: the first is in regard to workplace bullying and harassment. Last year, the commissioner indicated that the number of employees witnessing workplace bullying and harassment had fallen 8 per cent since 2018. Are you able to provide an update on where these statistics now sit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that the specifics of what the member is referring to would likely have been from the I Work for SA—Your Voice public sector survey. I do not have details of any changes since that survey but, if there are changes that are able to be reported on, I am happy to take that on notice and see if there is a response that can be brought back.

Mr COWDREY: I will run through these. I imagine the results will be similar, but if they could be taken on notice I think that would be helpful. The report also advised that the number of employees experiencing workplace bullying and harassment in the previous 12 months had fallen 4 per cent since 2018 to 17 per cent. Are you able to advise if that trend continued or if there are updated numbers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice, but I understand that it is publicly available information.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, but the publication obviously has not occurred for this financial year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will provide whatever answers are collatable and able to be provided in the time that we have to get back for responses.

Mr COWDREY: There will be two more along the same line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Maybe if you wish to read them, I can give you the assurance I will do that again.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, take them on notice. The commissioner's report also indicated that the public sector continued to employ a record number of Aboriginal South Australians, with 2,317 employees self-identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people as of 30 June 2021. Does she have any update to that figure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can take that on notice. The figures are not yet available is my information, but if they become available and are able to be publicly released before we have to get back with these responses—I am not sure yet, but I will find that information—I am happy to bring it back if I can.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to confirm the time line for publication for this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is September when the publications happen, so I do not imagine I would be able to have the figures before then. Chair, I think it is said at the start of the session the date that responses to questions are—

The CHAIR: It is 22 September, from memory.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If those times happily coincide, the publication is before then, and we are able to do it in the time frames, I am happy to bring those back.

Mr COWDREY: One can only hope. In the last report, the number of women taking up women's executive roles within the public sector was put at just over 57 per cent.

The CHAIR: I just need to correct the date: it is 2 September.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is going to be more difficult, but we will see what we can do. What was the question about women in executive roles, to see whether we have any information?

Mr COWDREY: The current percentage of women in the executive positions within the public sector?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that the gender split of executives within the public sector as at the last report in 2001 was 57 per cent female and 43 per cent male.

Mr COWDREY: There has been no update on that number as yet?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Ms RANIERI: There will be in September.

Mr COWDREY: Shifting to another topic, was the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment involved in the recent recruitment of the Chief Executive of DPC, the Chief Executive of the Premier's Delivery Unit or the Chief Executive of the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia and, if so, what role did the office play?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that my advice is that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment was involved in some way in all the ones that he has mentioned.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to outline what role they played in those recruitments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There was involvement from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment in all of them, but these really are questions in relation to things that have been hired for DPC. I am happy to refer those to the Premier to give a more complete way that they were involved because they cross over in relation to what DPC does.

Mr COWDREY: I am not necessarily interested in the view of DPC though. The question is in regard to the role—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that. But given that it intersected and interacted with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I am happy to take those on notice and get further information about the role and bring back a reply for the member.

Mr COWDREY: For clarity, the function and operation of the commissioner is not subject to this examination?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I have said that there has been involvement in all of those, but for further and better information I am happy to bring back a reply in conjunction with information from DPC.

Mr COWDREY: Did these recruitment processes involve private sector recruitment consultants?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to bring back an answer after consultation with DPC.

Mr COWDREY: Was the recruitment conducted by the office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to bring back an answer after consultation with DPC in relation to the member's very important question.

Mr COWDREY: If the recruitment was not conducted by DPC and the recruitment was conducted by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, is it not therefore a question to be asked through you to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment what her role was in these processes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, it is. It is quite rightly a question that you properly ask of me and it is quite rightly an answer I will properly give after consultation with DPC.

The CHAIR: I remind members that questions are to be directed to ministers. It is up to the minister whether or not they choose their adviser to respond on their behalf. It is not up to members to ask the minister to ask their advisers to respond on their behalf.

Mr COWDREY: I do not believe I directed a question to the commissioner, but—

The CHAIR: I am just making sure there is no misunderstanding.

Mr COWDREY: Were the consultants that were used through the recruitment process appointed by tender and, if not, who were they engaged by and how were they engaged?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is probably one that is almost wholly within DPC, so I will definitely refer that one to DPC and see if there is an answer to bring back.

Mr COWDREY: Is it not standard practice for the procurement of recruitment services to be undertaken by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think in many cases the office will have some role in that. As I said, I understand the office did have some role in that, but as to the details of the answer I will consult with DPC and bring back an informed answer for the member.

Mr COWDREY: Can you take on notice the private consultant involved in each of these processes and the fee payable for their involvement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can take that on notice, certainly.

Mr COWDREY: The recently appointed Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet has a total annual renumeration package valued at $697,000, almost 12 per cent or $74,000 higher than the previous incumbent appointed only a year earlier. Who determined the salary package?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that the Premier answered some if not all of these questions, that I suspect are going to be asked after this, yesterday. But to the extent that the questions were not answered by the Premier, I am happy to refer them to him.

Mr COWDREY: Did the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment have any role in determining the salary package?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, the intersection of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment with DPC on these matters—I am happy to make sure I am bringing a clear and correct answer back, and I will take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: With all due respect, minister, the office for public sector employment has an interaction with every other department when hiring executives. Are you refusing to answer all questions in relation to executive hiring?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I am happy to take questions on notice because, as you said, if it is to do with another department there will be an intersection and interaction with that other department. I think it is appropriate that I bring back as complete an answer as I can for the member.

Mr COWDREY: The newly created position of chief executive within the Premier's Delivery Unit has a total annual renumeration package valued at $354,145. Who determined that this position was to be classified as a chief executive or within the CE band and what involvement, if any, did the Premier have in this decision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the member is asking what my knowledge is of the Premier's knowledge about something else, and I suspect these questions were asked of the Premier as well. To the extent that they were not and there is something there, I will refer that to the Premier.

Mr COWDREY: If the Premier did not determine them, who did?

The CHAIR: The minister's immediate response was not that. I will rule that question—

Mr COWDREY: I believe the minister's response was that.

The CHAIR: No, not at all. I am happy to have the Hansard record of what he said. I think it is important that members also listen to the minister's response. Even though they do not like them or disagree with them, they should listen to the response. Next question.

Mr COWDREY: Did the office or the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment provide any advice with regard to the salary for the positions of Chief Executive of DPC, Chief Executive of the Premier's Delivery Unit or the Chief Executive of the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to bring back a reply to that after having reference to DPC and their involvement and what involvement the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment had.

Mr COWDREY: She is sitting right next to you; you could ask her.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said before in relation to these questions—we can keep going on this because we do not have long, if that is how the member wants to approach it—it intersects with another department, so I want to bring back an accurate reply for the member.

Mr COWDREY: The newly created position of Chief Executive of the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia has a total annual remuneration package valued at $550,000. This is the second highest package paid to a public servant chief executive in South Australia. Did the minister have any involvement in this negotiation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the question: did I, as Minister for Industrial Relations, have involvement in this negotiation?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Personally, I did not have a direct involvement in this negotiation.

Mr COWDREY: What was your indirect involvement, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I did not say I had an indirect involvement.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I didn't say I had a direct involvement at all.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I will ask one further question in regard to the previous line of questioning. Did the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment provide any advice to the minister or others in regard to the processes that should be undertaken in terms of recruitment of the three positions of the Chief Executive of DPC, the Chief Executive of the Premier's Delivery Unit or the Chief Executive of the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not recall any advice that was provided directly to me.

Mr COWDREY: In the time remaining, perhaps I will direct some questions to the minister in regard to the impact of COVID on the public sector. During COVID, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment had the important role of providing leadership and resources to assist the public sector to continue delivering services safely, implement COVID-19 safe transition of employees back to the workplaces and transform service delivery and workforce management following the disruption caused by COVID.

Are there any key lessons the commissioner could share with the committee in terms of how the public sector has performed during the transition from the pandemic and any initiatives in terms of reforms that she sees as necessary moving forward?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question, and he is right: since March 2020, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has played a key role in the support of the public sector to manage staff impacts from COVID-19 and to mobilise a surge workforce to continue critical services being delivered safely.

In March 2020, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment issued Commissioner's Determination 3.1, Supplementary Provisions for COVID-19, which set out COVID-19 management provisions for public sector staff. This is continually reviewed and updated in light of public health advice. At that time and subsequently, I am advised that the officers provided significant guidance on how agencies could enable people to work from home productively and manage their wellbeing.

Leave provisions introduced by the commissioner included special leave with pay for COVID-19 purposes. Since the reopening of South Australia's borders in November 2021, and before opening and closing the borders, special leave with pay was granted and taken by public sector employees, including and excluding agencies that manage their own payroll systems, such as education and SAPOL.

I know that, as we have changed throughout the pandemic, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has had a role in providing updates, and public sector chief executives were reminded in February 2022 that staff can return to workplaces, provided health advice was followed. With the recent cessation of the emergency declaration under the Emergency Management Act, consultation is underway on the ongoing management of the impacts of the pandemic on the workforce generally.

This is probably the most important part, I am advised, in relation to the member's question—that is, what lessons have been learnt, what has been done well and how things might be conducted in the future. Importantly, during the pandemic the commissioner coordinated the mobilisation of 491 public sector staff to respond to surge workforce capacity needs. A further 253 have been trained to assist if necessary.

A large part of the mobilisation work conducted by the commission will conclude in June unless there are further significant outbreaks warranted by any changes to the COVID-19 situation. In relation to particular lessons, the mobilisation of the public sector workforce to meet the needs and demands, I am advised, is one of the big lessons to be learnt from how the pandemic has been managed in relation to the public sector.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, what projects will the office be undertaking in financial year 2022-23?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Some of the areas for the upcoming financial year include:

continue the leadership and advice to the public sector in relation to COVID-19 to deliver us safely and to continue to transform service delivery as a result of COVID-19 and beyond;

look at developing a new strategy that can continue to create an inclusive and diverse public sector workplace;

set new and consistent standards across the public sector;

define the attributes, skills and behaviours expected of public sector leaders and realign development programs to embed these;

update and simplify public sector standards for employee integrity; and

lead the implementation of the human resources strategy and public sector workforce transformation reform initiatives through enhanced human resource management policy, systems and capability development.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the public sector and wage rises in the next 12 months of this budget period, what public sector wage rise is there across the whole sector as an average?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there is not an average I can give you. I am not sure if there is one. I am not aware of an annualised figure worked out across all the components of the public sector but, if there is one that can readily be worked out without diverting too many of the resources of the good folk in this area, I will see if that can be brought back.

Mr McBRIDE: These questions are very general. If the wage rise across the public sector is not consistent across all sectors, what are the differences in that wage rise, bearing in mind that the current inflation rate in Australia is 7 per cent this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think wage rises across the public sector are subject to enterprise bargaining, just as they are in the private sector. Certainly, a percentage per year pay increase is just one of the elements that make up enterprise bargaining outcomes not just in the public sector but right across the private sector. There are necessarily differences to cater for different circumstances. Length of agreements sometimes influences that as well, as well as the many other conditions that happen as part of enterprise bargaining negotiations. To reiterate, it would be impossible to give an average for the future, given those parameters.

The CHAIR: This will be the last question.

Mr COWDREY: Just to finish, can you confirm the budgeted FTE for this financial year, the budgeted FTE for the previous financial year and estimated result?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment?

Mr COWDREY: Correct, and the total number of executive positions, if that is okay, too.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the 2022-23 budget anticipates 34.5 FTEs and included in those are two executives, including the commissioner.

Mr COWDREY: How does that compare with the previous financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there were three executives in the previous financial year, the financial year we are just completing at the moment.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the office of the public sector complete.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr M. Francis, Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr D. Quirk, Chief Financial Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr M. Campbell, Executive Director, SafeWork SA.

Ms P. Osborne, Director, Workplace Education and Business Services, SafeWork SA.

Mr S. Johnson, Manager Government Relations, ReturnToWorkSA.

The CHAIR: We now move on to ReturnToWorkSA, SafeWork SA. The minister appearing is the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector. Minister, do you wish to invite your advisers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, sir, I will introduce the people we now have with us. We have on my right Martyn Campbell, from SafeWork SA and, on my left, Michael Francis and Des Quirk from ReturnToWorkSA. We also have Prema Osborne from SafeWork SA, Steven Johnson from ReturnToWorkSA and Caroline Mealor and, who can forget, Andrew Swanson from such things as—

The CHAIR: 24 years' experience.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —all the estimates today and all the estimates for the last 24 years.

The CHAIR: He is waiting for his gold-plated watch next time. It will not be a Cartier, sorry. Minister, you do not have an opening statement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have an opening and I am happy to launch into questions.

Mr COWDREY: Can I begin with Budget Paper 5, page 9, the table around budget initiatives, operating efficiencies. It is just the general departmental operating efficiencies. I think you should easily be able to confirm that there are $20 million worth of cuts that have been allocated to your department.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Whereabouts on the table are we looking?

Mr COWDREY: Within the table, operating efficiencies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the member can refer me to the part of the table. Is that two-thirds of the way down, just above administered items; is that what he is referring to?

Mr COWDREY: Operating efficiencies, operating savings, just sitting above administered items in the headline, $20 million worth of cuts across the next four financial years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. Is that a question?

Mr COWDREY: That was a question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the question?

Mr COWDREY: Can you confirm this?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm that there are operating savings in 2022-23 of $4.050 million, in 2023-24 of $4.282 million, in 2024-25 of $4.559 million and in 2025-26 of $7.248 million.

Mr COWDREY: Have cuts been allocated to SAET, SafeWork SA or ReturnToWorkSA?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I was asked about the savings that are part of the operating savings of the Attorney-General's Department earlier by your colleague the member for Heysen, the shadow attorney-general. I can confirm that, over the coming weeks, the team in AGD, led by Caroline Mealor, will be discussing with the different parts of the Attorney-General's Department how those savings will be met.

Mr COWDREY: So you are not able to give an indication, as you did earlier, in terms of any of those areas being absent of a savings task?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I was able to do that with that one coming in, but in terms of other areas I know that there is discussion over the coming weeks about different areas and how those will be allocated. I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr COWDREY: When were you made aware that Treasury had made a determination in terms of what areas or branches of Treasury were to be allocated or not allocated savings tasks?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What areas of Treasury were to be allocated—

Mr COWDREY: You responded earlier that you were able to say conclusively that the office for public sector employment was not going to be open to a savings task because decisions had already been made in terms of Treasury on who had been allocated operational savings. When were you made aware by Treasury that they had made determinations already, in terms of areas or branches of the department to be absented from savings tasks?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to go back and check when I was made aware. I will have to go back and check. I do not have a date, certainly in terms of the question asked earlier about the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. As to when I was first aware, I am not sure, but I am sure I can go and find the information as to when the department was made aware.

Mr COWDREY: If you could take that on notice, it would be appreciated.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Again, this is probably an overlap between the two, so I apologise in terms of where it is positioned. Can you outline the cost, or take on notice the cost, of the machinery of government changes to the department?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that information available, but to the extent that there are costs, and costs that are able to be identifiable—just so I am clear in what the member is asking, are they for a—

Mr COWDREY: All machinery of government changes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Changes for Attorney-General globally, I understand.

Mr COWDREY: If you could break those down by separate instance, that would be appreciated.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If they can be broken down, I am happy to do that, and if they can only be supplied globally, I will endeavour to do that as well.

Mr COWDREY: I take the minister to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 44, SafeWork SA objectives. What is the status of the Mansfield review into SafeWork SA's handling of the Gayle Woodford matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: John Mansfield QC, former Federal Court judge, was commissioned with conducting a review specifically—if I am remembering correctly and I will double-check this—into the investigation conducted by SafeWork SA and in relation to keeping the family of Gayle Woodford informed in relation to the investigation. They were the two areas in particular that former Justice Mansfield was asked to review.

I understand that that review has started in earnest and is continuing. I think, off the top of my head, that it is sometime in July that it is due to report back. If that is not right, I will correct that, but I believe it is sometime in July that Justice Mansfield's review is due to finish. I expect it will be sometime soon after that that there is a report.

Mr COWDREY: Has SafeWork to this point complied with all requests for information and documents from the reviewer?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is yes, SafeWork has fully cooperated and replied to the inquiries made by former Justice Mansfield.

Mr COWDREY: How much will the review cost, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that figure with me. I am happy to take that on notice and provide a response to how much that review will cost. I think it is an important review. There was a significant amount of interest and, certainly, it was tragic circumstances for the Woodford family. Looking at how parts of government conduct what they do is important for a few reasons: to make sure the public in general have confidence in what government does and also to look for areas that can be improved upon. In relation to the cost, I am happy to take that on notice, but I think it is a particularly important piece of work.

Mr COWDREY: I completely agree. Minister, in your opinion, is it being appropriately resourced?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have any information to suggest that it is not being appropriately resourced and, in my experience, people like former Federal Court judges tend to make their views known if they think that they need anything more to do what they are engaged to do.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, can you confirm which agency is funding the review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am pretty sure it will be somewhere from within the Attorney-General's Department, which is my department and where SafeWork SA now sits. If there is more particularity needed, I am happy to see if something can be righted. Again, if I am mistaken I will correct the record, but it would be from within the Attorney-General's Department is my understanding.

Mr COWDREY: Can you confirm if this is being funded from contingency or if there has been an allocation made in the budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and see what is brought back.

Mr COWDREY: You mentioned that you expect former Justice Mansfield to conclude his report in July. Are you happy to take on notice when you expect the report to be provided?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am happy to take that on notice, but I would expect that it would be very soon after that.

Mr COWDREY: Could you, in that case—July is a obviously four weeks in length—take on notice and give us greater clarity as to when you expect the report to be provided to you?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is mid-July when it is expected to be concluded.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, do you commit to making the full report and findings public within seven days of receipt to provide the family and the South Australian public with closure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I have already publicly committed to making the report public.

Mr COWDREY: Will you do so within seven days?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, I expect it will be released pretty soon after being received.

Mr COWDREY: I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 44, the same reference. The Labor Party committed to a root-and-branch review of the practices and processes of SafeWork SA, as spelled out in the Labor Party IR election commitments document. Was a budget allocation made in the budget for the review to be undertaken?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There was a budget allocation for a number of things that could possibly include that review. I do not have that in front of me, but I think it was $1.5 million. I will seek to find exactly where that was and bring back a reply. I think it was $1.5 million for a range of things in the IR area. In relation to this one, I will check whether or not that was included as part of that and bring back a reply. In the coming months, we would hope that that work would start. I anticipate that the findings from former Justice Mansfield's work will help inform part of that review as well.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide greater clarity in terms of when you expect the review to be undertaken?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have exact information in front of me now, but I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply in relation to that question.

Mr COWDREY: Who will undertake the review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is still to be determined—someone with experience in this area who can undertake that review. I have just received further information in relation to the previous line of questioning. The Justice Mansfield review in relation to the Gayle Woodford investigation, I am informed, is due 15 July. I think I initially said July and then refined it to mid-July; I am happy to further refine it to right in the middle of July, on the 15^th.

Mr COWDREY: Just to confirm, is that when the report is being received or when you expect the investigation to conclude?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that is when we expect the report to be received.

Mr COWDREY: You have mentioned an allocation of $1.5 million to cover a broad range of commitments in the IR space. What is the expected cost of the review by itself?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that information before me. Until the exact details, scope and personnel for the review are finalised I will not have that. If that happens between now and when questions are due to be tabled, I am happy to see if we can bring back a reply for that.

Mr COWDREY: I presume, given that you have made an election commitment, you have some thoughts regarding the terms of the review. Are you able to provide greater detail?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are working on that as we speak.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 81. I am sure you will appreciate that, similar to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, there are very few references to ReturnToWorkSA in the budget papers, given the fact that they are a financial public corporation. The only two mentions are their FTEs and also their dividend return to government, which is struck out. Seeing as they are here, I assume you are happy to answer questions in regard to them in a similar vein as you did.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Page 81 of the Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3?

Mr COWDREY: Yes. A number of ReturnToWorkSA FTEs participated in the preparation of the original Return to Work Act reform bill introduced into the other place and then removed by the minister. I will not ask questions relating to the new bill, as I understand it is before the parliament and therefore not allowed. Minister, did ReturnToWorkSA actuary Finity prepare advice for the corporation on the original bill and the impact of the original bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that the scheme's actuarial consultants, Finity, which I understand have been actuaries for the scheme for some 14 years, are not engaged at a certain point in time to provide only a certain amount of advice: they are essentially continually engaged to provide advice on a whole range of areas to do with return to work.

In relation to the impact of the Summerfield Supreme Court decision, I am advised that Finity had done work in providing estimates of what that meant financially for the scheme and what that could potentially mean financially for the viability of the scheme, including what rates might need to be to cover the impacts of any decision which necessarily went to a bill that was formerly before this parliament.

Mr COWDREY: Was this work that you have just alluded to supported by an independent third-party review undertaken by PwC?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that to be the case. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr COWDREY: When did the minister first meet with the unions with regard to the original bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a date about when the first meeting was. There have been many, many meetings with unions, collectively and individual unions, and employer groups over the last few weeks. I do not have an exact date as to when a first meeting occurred, but there have been many, many meetings, discussions and phone calls over the last few weeks about the scheme in general and any potential changes to the scheme.

Mr COWDREY: Is the minister happy to take that question on notice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take it on notice to see what useful information could be provided.

Mr COWDREY: Does the minister believe that the work undertaken by ReturnToWork FTEs in preparing a bill with a full evidence base and actuarial advice should have been presented to the parliament with no notice on budget day?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The question does not make much sense. Notice was given the day before it was introduced, so the idea that there was no notice is false, as notice would have been given the day before the introduction of a bill. There was notice given of the introduction of the bill the day before it was introduced.

Mr COWDREY: Can the minister confirm that the bill to address the Summerfield issue was done so based on a recommendation of the ReturnToWork board?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can say that ReturnToWork provide a range of advice that then informs decision-makers about what is put forward. It is up to governments to then make the decision about what is put forward and then up to parliament to make the decision about what passes parliament.

Mr COWDREY: What was the scheme funding ratio at the end of May 2022?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that I do not have May 2022. What I have is a figure for March 2022, when the scheme's funding ratio was 86.9 per cent, I am informed.

Mr COWDREY: That was inclusive of the $580 million liability applied due to the Summerfield understanding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have a scheme funding ratio should the current bill have passed or the original bill had passed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Had the original bill passed? I do not have that available now, but I am happy to see if that can be found and brought back.

Mr COWDREY: In a similar vein, what was the forecast scheme funding ratio had the original bill passed the parliament for end of June 2022?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to see if those figures are available and bring back a reply for the member.

Mr COWDREY: To the minister and perhaps to the chief executive, who I anticipate may be able to provide a more fulsome answer to this question, did he anticipate that the original bill, should it have passed, would have held premiums below 1.8 per cent in the longer term?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As we traversed a bit earlier, I know that much work had been done and continued to be done in relation to what effect bills might have had on premiums. I think it is estimated that premiums might have been at 1.8 per cent had the original bill passed. I might also note that this is some 12 months on from when the Full Court of the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Summerfield. I will check if there is an answer because it is a pretty good question the member has asked.

I will see if there is an answer that, if the former government had done anything about the Summerfield decision in the three years since it was originally handed down but specifically in the 12 months before the Full Court decision of the Supreme Court was handed down, could that have put even further downward pressure on premiums. I will go away and find that answer as well because it might be that the former government's failure to act has contributed to where we are now in terms of premium. It is a very good question that the member asks.

Mr COWDREY: Was the corporation relying on silk advice in terms of its movements in regard to reacting to the Summerfield decision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Was the corporation relying on?

Mr COWDREY: Silk advice, in terms of how it progressed with addressing the Summerfield decision.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Advice from Senior Counsel?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that the commission bases decisions on legal advice that they seek. Clearly, I am not going to. It is not my advice, but I am sure that the corporation is not going to go into what any such advice is. As the member would be aware—

Mr COWDREY: I was not—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am anticipating possible questions. Disclosing the nature of any advice might tend to waive legal professional privilege. It is not something, I think, I or the corporation will do, but I am informed that the corporation does take advice in making its decisions.

Mr COWDREY: To be clear, I was not about to ask you to disclose any of that advice. I was just perhaps providing you with an answer to the question you posed to me. Minister, do you think it was a productive use of ReturnToWork FTE time to brief the opposition on a bill that was pulled two hours later?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is always a good use of time to have people as informed as they can be on matters.

Mr COWDREY: Referring to Budget Paper 3, page 63, public financial corporations, ReturnToWork, can the minister provide to the committee the current composition of the ReturnToWork board and when the terms of those members expire?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the current board is constituted of the chair, Mr Greg McCarthy, whose term expires in February 2025. I am informed Mr McCarthy is a former director of the Motor Accident Commission, a former CEO of ReturnToWorkSA and a former chair of the New South Wales WorkCover Authority.

I am advised that also on the board is the Hon. John Rau SC, a barrister, former Deputy Premier of South Australia, whose term expires on 31 October 2024. I am informed that also on the board is Ms Elizabeth Perry, a former chair of the RAA, a lawyer with board experience across public, commercial and not-for-profit sectors, whose term expires in February 2025.

I am informed that also on the board is Associate Professor Bill Griggs, formerly from the Royal Adelaide Hospital, whose term expires in October 2022. I am informed that Mr Chris Latham, an insurance actuary, is also on the board and his term expires in October 2022. I am informed that Narelle Borda is on the board, a member of Macro Group Australia, whose term expires in October 2024, and Yvonne Sneddon, a professional non-executive director whose term expires in October 2022.

Mr COWDREY: Can you confirm the remuneration of those board members for the financial year 2022-23?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is each of the board members is remunerated at a rate of $55,000 per annum and the chair of the board is remunerated at a rate of $100,000 per annum.

Mr COWDREY: That will remain for the coming financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no intention to change. There has certainly been no discussion that anyone has had with me.

Mr COWDREY: Does the minister anticipate making any changes to the composition of the board when terms expire later this financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think governments always look at what the best options are for all the boards and committees that help inform government and do work for government. I think all ministers probably say that in relation to any boards or committees they will always look to see what needs are best served.

Mr COWDREY: I will take that as a yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will always look to see how the needs are best served. I think it would probably be irresponsible for a minister to say they would never have any intention of changing anyone on any of their boards, so I am certainly not going to do that.

Mr COWDREY: Can the minister provide an update in regard to ReturnToWork COVID-19 related claims and also Crown self-insured COVID-19 claims?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can. I am informed that, as of 2 June 2022, 111 COVID-19 claims have been accepted—

Mr COWDREY: To be clear, is this ReturnToWork or self-insured?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the Return to Work scheme. Thirteen claims have been rejected and five claims have been withdrawn in the registered employer scheme, the Return to Work scheme. The figures I have are not quite as up to date. As at end of March 2022, information provided to ReturnToWorkSA by self-insured employers, including Crown employers, shows that 23 COVID-19 claims have been accepted, eight rejected and three withdrawn.

Mr COWDREY: How many of those 23 relate to the Crown?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have those figures. If I can break them down, I am happy to take that away and do so.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide the estimated cost to the scheme of just the ReturnToWork numbers or are these still in train?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The estimated cost of the scheme of the 111 COVID-19 claims?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure we have those figures with us, but if they are easily extracted I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply. Give me a moment.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, and perhaps an average cost per head, if it is available. For the lack of a better term, the cost per claim is perhaps more appropriate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am assuming the dates that I am giving, these two, line up with the dates that I have reported. I cannot see a date here, but I am assuming they are the same dates.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps you can confirm on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm a total claims cost for COVID-19 of $290,923, with an average claim cost of $1,914 for the Return to Work scheme.

Mr COWDREY: This should be a relatively easy one. I am 100 per cent confirming—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Famous last words.

Mr COWDREY: —yes—tax equivalent payment in financial year 2021-22 and the projection for 2022-23? I assume that is going to be more complex, based on the bill before the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To provide some useful context, sections 29(2)(a) and (3) of the Public Corporations Act require public corporations to make a payment to the Treasurer or equivalent to the income tax and other taxes or imposts it would be liable to pay under the law of the commonwealth, otherwise known as the tax equivalent payment.

Section 27A(1) of the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia Act confirms the applications of the Public Corporations Act in relation to that tax equivalent payment. Pursuant to Treasurer's Instruction 22, this tax equivalent payment is calculated by applying the company income tax to ReturnToWorkSA's audited accounting profit. ReturnToWorkSA's audited accounting profit is the net profit as a result of ordinary operating activities.

Pursuant to section 27A of the Return to Work Act, Return to Work is only required to make a tax equivalent payment if it achieves a funding level of at least 100 per cent at a probability of sufficiency of 75 per cent and it achieves a profit from its insurance operations. It is not expected that these criteria will be met for 2021-22. That is a full way of setting it out.

Mr COWDREY: I am not sure the preamble was necessary, but thank you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The short way is that, given where the scheme is right now, there will not be a tax equivalent payment—so zero.

Mr COWDREY: Thank you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You are welcome.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, can you provide detail or confirm the total expenditure through legal provider contracts for the financial year 2021-22 and what is projected for 2022-23?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have those figures available. If that is a figure that can be extracted, I am happy to go away and see whether an answer can be brought back.

Mr COWDREY: You will take it on notice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take it on notice, but I suspect that there will be some areas where figures are not easily extractable, or there are reasons that they are not published. However, I will look to see whether that can be done. I will take it on notice with those provisos.

Mr COWDREY: This is a fairly standard question, but can the minister provide the updated return to work results for the financial year 2021-22 on the 13, 26 and 52-week performance percentage?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I just check? What specifically is the member requesting?

Mr COWDREY: The return to work statistics, the number of workers who returned to work on the usual horizons—13, 26 and 52 weeks.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I can. For context, I can go back over the last five years so there can be an appreciation of those, or just this current financial year?

Mr COWDREY: Just this financial year is fine.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the 2021-22 part of year ending in March, my advice is that the 13-week rate is 83 per cent, the 26-week rate at 88 per cent and the 52-week rate at 92 per cent.

Mr COWDREY: Do you broadly expect those to be the end-of-year outcomes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, it is broadly expected they will be close to what was known at the end of March. They are not terribly inconsistent with the last five years.

Mr COWDREY: With respect to benefit fraud referrals, is the minister able to outline the number of referrals received and the number that have been investigated by ReturnToWork for the past financial year, or is that too much for the statistics you have available?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have those figures here. After some discussion, we will see whether we have those figures that can be reported, and, if so, I am happy to take that on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps we will quickly duck back to SafeWork and then I just have a couple of questions on SAET. Perhaps given the confusion around where I ask that, if you are happy to take a couple of high-level policy ones and the rest on notice—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There may be some I can answer without officials, and then if there are any that require greater specificity I am happy to take them on notice.

Mr COWDREY: We will have to get greater clarity where the programs sit for next year. Just in terms of SafeWork, so going back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 44, could you outline the general reform programs or projects that are being undertaken by SafeWork SA for the coming financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. There are a number of aims over the next year for SafeWork SA. They include continuing to contribute to the work injury reduction trend in South Australia in relation to the fair enforcement of the safe work laws, continuing to provide consistent practical services to support businesses and workers to improve work health and safety noncompliance and, importantly, introducing a new explosives bill into the Parliament of South Australia.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, I am after reform projects, as opposed to the objectives of the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is there anything in particular that the member—

Mr COWDREY: I am just after a review of allocation towards new projects to reform or improve SafeWork SA's performance.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Rather than try to list some off, I am happy to take on notice the continuous improvement projects in particular that SafeWork are engaging in. It might be more useful, rather than trying to be told a couple and then repeat a few, to take that on notice to provide a much more thorough answer.

Mr COWDREY: In the budget paper at that reference, I notice the phone call target was not met this financial year. Is there anything being introduced to address that issue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that in the last year there was a new telephone system introduced, which affected the performance of the system, but my advice is that there is new training that has been undertaken to make sure that telephone service is efficient and effective.

Mr COWDREY: So the minister will guarantee that that target is met next financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there is training that is being undertaken to make sure it is efficient and effective.

Mr COWDREY: I am sure you have great confidence in your program.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At some stage later in his career when the member for Colton might sit in these chairs, I look forward to him answering with a guarantee for everything that he is asked to happen sometime in the future.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: He would probably beat you in a swimming race.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: He would beat me swimming if I was running or on a motorbike, I suspect.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps we will shift to some of the more general IR questions and then anything that needs to be taken on notice, we will. Across the public sector, what is the average wage increase assumption as a percentage each year across the forward estimates, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I think there was a question the member for MacKillop asked about wage increases. Certainly, I am aware, in my previous role in opposition as Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, that it is a question I would regularly ask of Treasury and Finance officials about some of those questions. I was very deftly answered that no such information would be provided. There are targets or contingencies in budgets, but they are, with good reason, not revealed because enterprise negotiations go on in relation to those. If need be, I can cut-and-paste what Rob Lucas's department used to tell me when we were in opposition.

Mr COWDREY: I believe the Treasury department operates for the people, minister. Will wage increases offered by the Minister for Industrial Relations be real wage increases or, to rephrase, above the rate of inflation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I think it was in relation to a question from the member for MacKillop: the percentage wage increases are only part of each industrial negotiation. There are all sorts of other things that are taken into account in respect of terms and conditions that are parts of those. It would be a very foolish thing to do, and I am certainly not going to do it, to rule anything particular in or out for something in the future.

Mr COWDREY: When head of the SDA in 2013, the now Premier declared that only Labor could deliver real wage growth. Can you confirm that you will or will not be offering increases that reflect real wage growth?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I refer the member to the answer I gave to the question immediately before.

Mr COWDREY: The risk assessment of this budget notes that every 1 per cent increase in wages and salaries above the estimates contained in the forward estimates would result in a $251 million impact on the budget. Nominal public sector employee expenses are projected to increase an average of 1.9 per cent over the forward estimates, well below inflation. Does this mean that the minister is going to be offering lower than inflation public sector wage increases, or will you be significantly cutting FTE numbers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am going to decline the invitation to answer in a binary manner. As I have said, there are all sorts of other things that are taken into account when industrial instruments are negotiated other than a percentage of a wage increase per year.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps this is easiest to take on notice. What EBs are expiring within the next two financial years and can you specify the agreements and expiration dates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I may have some, but let me see. I thought I had enough information to cover that, but I will take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, what is the status of the ambulance officers' EB?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. It is something that I have been asked in question time in the other chamber in recent times. One thing that I am certainly not intending to do on a regular basis, as the former minister under the last government responsible for industrial relations did, is give regular updates or conduct megaphone negotiations in relation to enterprise bargaining. As a general rule, I do not think that is a helpful thing to be doing.

What I can say is I know that representatives of the government and the union responsible have been bargaining in good faith, which is something we said we would do if we came to government. I am hopeful and optimistic that there will be a satisfactory resolution to an agreement that, if my memory serves me correctly, is at least four years out of date. Off the top of my head, I think it might have been at the start of 2018 that ambulance officers last received a pay rise. I am optimistic and hopeful that satisfactory outcomes will be negotiated and finalised in the not too distant future.

Mr COWDREY: To be clear, it has not been finalised to date?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will double-check this, but my understanding is that all things required to finalise an EB have not yet been completed for the ambulance officers.

Mr COWDREY: But an agreement has been reached?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the parties are a lot closer than they were six months ago.

Mr COWDREY: Effectively, is the legal instrument what you are waiting for, or are there further negotiations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take that on notice, but one thing that I am not sure was entirely helpful was a habit of the IR minister under the last government, when it suited, to provide updates and chastise union bosses as part of a negotiating tactic, which is not something that I intend to be doing on a regular basis.

Mr COWDREY: Has any potential back pay relating to this agreement been included in the budget or allocated for in the budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again, I am not going to go into negotiating with a megaphone in relation to this ongoing negotiation. What I can say is that there was a policy position put forward by the industrial relations minister in the last government that, as a matter of policy, back pay would not be a part of any negotiation.

It is no secret that before coming to government and after coming to government, this government has made it clear that that is not our position and that back pay or payments for years where there has been no pay rise at all, as there have been on some occasions, is not a policy position that we take and that that is something that could never be negotiated and was, necessarily, off the table.

Mr COWDREY: Given that is your policy, then, has an allocation been made in the budget for that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are two elements. I am not going to go into where negotiations are at in relation to a particular negotiation but, even more so, the principle that we talked about earlier that was quite steadfastly put forward by the previous government about what is or is not in contingencies for any set of negotiations, or negotiations globally, will not be publicly ventilated.

Mr COWDREY: On the same budget reference in regard to FTE allocation to the industrial relations branch, there has been an additional 1.5 FTE associated in the budget paper. What functions will the additional FTE be performing? I appreciate that you may need to take that on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I thank the member for his question. The one additional FTE across what is now in the Attorney-General's Department that is in the budget papers, I am happy to take on notice and find out what the function of that one FTE will be. I suspect it is most likely a function that goes into a particular area or team.

Mr COWDREY: No, this is just in relation to the industrial relations branch. Obviously, there may be offsetting changes across the whole department.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed. I am happy to find out what that one relates to.

Mr COWDREY: And if you are also able to confirm the level that that FTE has been budgeted at.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that question on notice also.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to SAET, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 46, the Labor Party committed to review the practice and jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Tribunal to ensure that it is 'effective and efficient for all those who use it', quoting the document, 'and empower it to enforce its decisions without going through other courts'. Was the budget allocation made in the budget for the review to be undertaken?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I will answer that as I did the last one. Across a range of the IR policies, there is a budget allocation to cover a number of policies that talk about IR. In relation to this specific one, I am happy to take it on notice and bring back a reply in relation to a particular budget allocation. I can inform the member that preliminary work has started on this and that some discussions have already taken place with stakeholders in preparation for having a more thorough look at the issues the member has raised in relation to the election commitment.

Mr COWDREY: So both the SafeWork review and the SAET review are contained in that 1.5 allocation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, I will take that on notice. There is $1.5 million for a range of things. I will need to check and take on notice if that is included in those or elsewhere and I am happy to bring back a reply in relation to that.

Mr COWDREY: When will the review be undertaken, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is anticipated sometime in the coming months.

Mr COWDREY: When do you anticipate it to be finished?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sometime after it starts.

Mr COWDREY: Who will undertake the review, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The person appointed to do so.

Mr COWDREY: We can play this game all day.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have started talking to stakeholders—and I think that has been an important part of a review like this one—about exactly how we do this review, who does the review and how long it takes. As with the previous review the member mentioned, we have not finalised how we are doing it, but we certainly will over the coming months. I suspect we will come and inform parliament with a ministerial statement and a press release when we do so.

Mr COWDREY: I suspect that may be the case. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14, ministerial office resources. Do you have the reference?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The very top of the page?

Mr COWDREY: Yes. How many public servants are employed in your office, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take that on notice. That is strictly to do with the Attorney-General's budget. I had a folder before me earlier in the day that had some of this information in it, but I do not have that folder with me now. I have the SafeWork SA, ReturnToWorkSA and Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment folder, not my Attorney-General's folder. I think I would have been able to answer that a little earlier in the day. Given that I think I have the information, I am happy to take it on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I can add one or two to that for you: are you able to provide that broken down by political staff as well as public servants, by FTE and total number?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do so.

Mr COWDREY: Also, are you able to provide the number of public servants who are seconded into your office and whether that FTE is additional to the number provided in the previous answer?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take those on notice and bring back a reply.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, do you have a last question or two?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I was hoping we would not have the member for MacKillop again.

The CHAIR: These will be really incisive questions.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, Mr Chairman and thank you, minister, for looking forward to hearing from me.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: He is the only one we ever fear.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the new legislation, the return to work legislation that passed last week, minister, can you inform the house and this committee in regard to the savings you have tried to make with this new legislation, bearing in mind that it is expected there will be further costs to WorkCover and ReturnToWorkSA?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just check with the Chair, if I can, member for MacKillop.

Mr McBRIDE: Sure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note that your colleague the member for Colton did not ask about legislation that is currently before the parliament. I suspect committees are not capable of asking about legislation currently before—

The CHAIR: Which line are you referencing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a question about legislation that is currently active and before the parliament.

The CHAIR: It has not quite passed through the other house?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, it has not passed the parliament yet.

The CHAIR: No, sorry.

Mr McBRIDE: That is alright. I will go back to my initial question, minister. I refer you to page 64 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1. In regard to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, could the minister inform the committee in regard to the number of employees who are on the books at the start of this budget, and what is the forecast over the next 12 months for the next budgeted year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is this in the public sector as a whole?

Mr McBRIDE: Yes, as of the start of this budget and the end of this budget.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice and bring back a reply. If the commissioner was still next to me, there was a chance I might have had that, but I am not sure, given it is not just that office but the whole public sector. I am more than happy to take that on notice for the member and bring back a reply.

Mr McBRIDE: If I may, I will jump all over the place because, sorry, I am not getting the answers I am looking for. I am going to go to Budget Paper 5, page 9. It talks about operating savings by the Attorney-General, right at the bottom of the page, with government supported trainees.

For the year 2021-22 it would be $3,200,000. If you jump to the budget year of 2022-23, it is $10 million, but then we have a massive fall to $2.2 million for the budget expected period of 2023-24 budget year, and then there is nothing at all. I am just wondering what the minister can refer to to explain the way that that is so up and down in numbers and why the traineeships are not consistent over the four years.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The advice I have been provided for the honourable member is that this particular program was intended as a one-off stimulus measure implemented during COVID-19. With the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and the effect of COVID-19, the need for this immediate economic stimulus has diminished.

Mr McBRIDE: Why then do you not have anything budgeted for 2024-25 or 2025-26? If it generally appears that you have an exceptional year of 2022-23 of $10 million, why would you not just put in $2 million or $3 million and expect the same either side of this exceptional year of high demand for high traineeships?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I said, the advice I have is that it was a one-off stimulus measure for COVID-19 and, as tends to be the case with these one-off measures, they are not intended to be for the long term. With the easing of restrictions and a return to pre-COVID times, the need for this immediate economic stimulus has diminished. That is the advice I received.

I think it is important to preface that. I am not sure if all, nearly all or the vast majority of these are in areas that are immediately in my portfolio areas in terms of the government traineeships, but that is the advice I am relying upon, that these are related to a one-off stimulus measure during COVID-19.

Mr COWDREY: Just very quickly, I did not get back to the SafeWork set. While one is too many, can you confirm how many deaths there were on worksites in the last financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How many worksite deaths?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, year to date, there have been 16 work-related deaths. For a bit more information, my advice is that six of those 16 related to deaths to do with a vehicle.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department complete. I thank the minister and his advisers, and I thank the members of the committee.

At 15:16 the committee adjourned until Wednesday 22 June 2022 at 09:00.