Electoral Commission of South Australia, $8,867,000

Administered Items for Electoral Commission of South Australia, $532,000

Membership:

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

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Sherry, Electoral Commissioner.

Mr W. Harlock, Acting Deputy Electoral Commissioner.

The CHAIR: We now come to the proposed payments for the Electoral Commission of SA. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Attorney-General, I invite you to make a statement, if you wish to do so, and to introduce your advisers, and then I will call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement if he so desires, and then call on questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have no opening statement, but I have with me Mick Sherry, the Electoral Commissioner, and Wayne Harlock, the Acting Deputy Electoral Commissioner.

The CHAIR: I call the member for Heysen, as lead speaker for the opposition.

Mr TEAGUE: Once again, can I draw your attention to Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3, table 2.6 that we see at page 23.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The whole of government one that you referred to earlier?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, table 2.6, operating expenses.

The CHAIR: Budget Paper 3, page 23; is that correct, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, that is the one.

The CHAIR: Just checking that we are on the same page.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. There we see agencies in alphabetical order and the Electoral Commission appears perhaps a quarter of the way down, and there indicated that the estimated result for 2022-23 was a million under the 2022-23 budget, thereby one of the rare ones contributing to a reduction of that $1.353 billion overspend to budget. Apart from congratulations on that, are there particular reasons for that capacity to apply the fiscal discipline?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have specific advice on a specific measure that contributed to that. With the round numbers in the millions of dollars, it may be that there is little variance, but the member is correct, the Electoral Commission has come in very close to what the estimate was. But to the extent that it is not just fluctuations in the cost of goods and services or cost of salaries that has contributed to whatever the difference is, we are happy to take on notice if there is a major item that has contributed to that, but nothing can be readily identified.

Mr TEAGUE: I guess it shows it can be done. I turn to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, where we see the Electoral Commission commencing at page 11, and go over to page 13, the investment program. The investment program budget increased, as we see there, to $115,000 from $50,000 in last year's budget. What are the reasons for that net and the application of those additional funds?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, the very specifics of this one we can take on notice for this further to be applied, but my initial advice is that it is likely to be IT-related works.

Mr TEAGUE: I go perhaps conveniently to Budget Paper 5 at page 30. We see there, provision in the order of $3 million over this budget and then in the two years hence, 2025-26, $2.9 million and $1.3 million to conduct the first two elections for members of the of the First Nations Voice to Parliament. There is an indication there that 'ongoing funding will be provided to run future elections in line with the state election cycle'. First of all, in light of today's announcement or reports that we see in the media, what effect if any will the delay or the rescheduling of the planned election have on exit planning and costs relative to provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for the question. Planning is something that I have appreciated regular updates on from the Electoral Commissioner in the planning of the First Nations Voice to Parliament. Much of the work, from my discussions with the Electoral Commissioner, that has already gone on will be very useful for the election that is now intended to be held on 16 March.

In terms of planning, the Electoral Commissioner was well on the way for planning for a September election, but all the work that has been done will still be equally applicable for a March election. In terms of costs: having made the decision, there will be some minor costs, there will be some variances both positive and negative but, for the whole of government, it is anticipated that there will be no additional costs in terms of the rescheduling of this election.

Mr TEAGUE: That perhaps might have been the next question. In terms of processes, it would have been my expectation that work would be imminently necessary, if not already commenced, in terms of just the nuts and bolts of getting out the election process for 9 September. If it is not already indicated, is there an assurance that none of that work is wasted?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no. As the member has correctly identified, the same sorts of processes, the systems, would be regardless of when the election is so that the good work that has already occurred will be equally applicable for a March election as it would have been for a September election.

Mr TEAGUE: What good work exactly is that? I am conscious that here we are talking about the budget for 2023-24 and provision of 2.9-odd for the year ahead. Is it a correct reading that on the planning before today's announcement the bulk of the 2.9 would be spent over the coming three months, if not all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member has stated as I am advised pretty succinctly that the bulk of the spending would have been spent close to the September election date and the bulk will now be able to be spent close to the March election date.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand that in general terms. Is there a clue in terms of the provision of 2.9 for 2023-24 and less than half that for two years hence in work that is done once, and what is the nature of that work that is going to be invested this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From previous discussions with the Electoral Commissioner, there has been advice on IT systems that are set up, portals for nominations that have been set up that will be not just applicable should there be a September election or a March election but will be able to help inform future elections.

It might be helpful to point out, because I suspect this is going to be a question in a few minutes' time, the difference between the costs of those two figures—the 2.9 for the first election and then the 1.2 for the subsequent election. I think as the honourable member has alluded to, part of that will be that you are setting things up for the first time, so there are necessary expenses incurred for the first time that will not necessarily be incurred the second time.

But of course as the honourable member knows from his close participation in the debate when the legislation was going through parliament that in subsequent First Nations Voice elections they will be held on the same day as a state election, so the infrastructure required to conduct those elections in the future will have a very different profile to the standalone infrastructure in terms of polling centres, early polling booths, remote polling that will be necessary for the first one.

Mr TEAGUE: You have referred to the setting up of portals and to IT expenses and the like. Are those investments that are about systems that will be applied for the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there anything that can explain what the nature of those portals and IT systems amounts to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From previous discussions—and I am happy to take more advice in a moment—it is the process for nominations. As to the requirements set down in the legislation the parliament passed, it is not the same as for nominations and processes for other elections, the processes that are required for nominations and the processes for running the elections themselves.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there any record keeping component in that work? Is there any capacity or intent to retain election data—for example, the declaration of eligibility and so on?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is most data, not just from this but from other elections. There is a capacity to keep a lot of data.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just need to scratch my head about where we got to, but does that include contemplation of the fact that once eligibility is declared there is the capacity for the commission to keep a record of that to save that having to occur each time going forward, or is that just something that needs to be repeated?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that records will be kept of each election, but you would have to renominate at each election, and if I am remembering correctly as legislation provides, to make the declaration at each election as well that you are eligible to either nominate or to vote.

Mr TEAGUE: So to nominate or to vote. To be clear, I was directing it as to qualification to vote. So it will not be—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I can be helpful. In some way, is there going to be something created that will be updated and informed by each election with further records—a roll of people kept who are eligible to either nominate or vote? I think the answer is that the legislation as we have passed it in this parliament provides that that declaration is made at each election for which you vote or stand. I think that is where we are looking at that.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand. So it is not within either or both of the capacity or the intent of the commission to be setting up some sort of record or data keeping for that purpose because the requirement will be that you are going to have to declare—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It does not preclude the capacity for data keeping, as is often kept, but the legislation requires that declaration to be made each time one votes.

Mr TEAGUE: The provision to the Electoral Commission that is the subject of the measures set out on page 30 of the Budget Measures Statement in Budget Paper 5, they are what they are and provide for the Electoral Commission specifically. Does that express the total forecast cost of those elections, or are there other costs that ECSA will be expected to meet in terms of administering the elections?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that these were the additional costs that were envisaged, or thought of, and forecast, that of course the very good work that day to day the Electoral Commission of South Australia does will be used necessarily—the staff, the knowledge and the systems—in the course of these elections. These were the forecast costs over and above what the commission already does or is capable of doing. I am advised that, if someone resigns or needs to do other things supplementary, that may be discussed, but that is the ordinary course of budgeting and the business of government anyway.

Mr TEAGUE: I note, at paper 4, Volume 2—back to the Agency Statements—that one of the targets of 2023-24—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Paper 4?

Mr TEAGUE: Page 15.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is it Volume 1 or Volume 2?

Mr TEAGUE: Volume 2, Electoral Commission, page 15, the targets 2023-24.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think we are on the same one, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We see that the first target is to conduct the initial election for members of the First Nations Voice. The indication, notwithstanding today's announcement, is that that will be achieved in 2023-24, and I think the minister has indicated 16 March. The second dot point target is:

Conduct an operational review of the initial First Nations Voice election and develop a program of improvements for conducting the subsequent First Nations Voice election in conjunction with the 2026 state parliamentary elections.

The third dot point is to publish the report, and the fourth dot point is:

Undertake a further review of the operation, effectiveness, and administration of all sections and regulations relating to the legislation underpinning the South Australian public funding and disclosure scheme.

There is work to be done over the year, particularly in relation to the assessment of the First Nations Voice election. Is it anticipated, in light of today's announcement, that that will be done within the period that is now going to be, effectively, three months rather than six—or nine, in fact?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, as the member correctly points out, a 16 March election would give 3½ months from the election to the end of the financial year. My advice is that particularly the second dot point is likely to be able to be completed by the end of those 3½ months afterwards. It may be that it is possible that the third dot point, the publication of the report itself, could go into the next financial year.

However, my advice is much of the work, and therefore the expenditure, is likely to be contained in this financial year. As is the ordinary course of many things in government, if it is the case that some of that work is not completed this year I am sure there will be a carryover request to make sure that that can properly be done in the next financial year, should that be the case. Having said that, my advice is that very largely, even if the report might be published into the next financial year, the expenditure on the preparation for the publication of that report is likely to be this financial year.

Mr TEAGUE: Speaking of reports, I am at Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 13, and the work of conducting the post-election processes still from 2022. Is it possible for the minister to provide an update to the committee on the progress of those three matters that were referred to the CSO on 19 October 2022 in relation to the 2022 state election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think you mentioned page 13. Is there a specific line we are looking at on page 13?

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps I might have to rely on the Electoral Services in the table and the key agency outputs, as described below. It is the core business of the Electoral Commission.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The second dot point is the administering, monitoring and reporting requirements of the Electoral Act. I think the member is referring to local government elections, which of course sit as a responsibility of Minister Geoff Brock under a separate act of parliament from the Electoral Act. I am wondering if a different dot point is being referred to for this question?

Mr TEAGUE: No, and I think to be clear I am talking about the matters that were referred to the Crown Solicitor's Office on 19 October last year that related to—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Relating to a state election?

Mr TEAGUE: —the conduct of the Labor Party in the course of the last state election.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the question as to the responsibility of the budget of the Electoral Commission in relation to that?

Mr TEAGUE: What work is still to be done by the Electoral Commission in that regard, and is there an update on progress of the outcome?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is to do with the state election, there is no further expenditure or work to be done for the Electoral Commission—

Mr TEAGUE: None at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —in relation to complaints as you outlined.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 18. The difference between the 2021-22 actual and the 2022-23 estimated result is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which table? The top or bottom table?

Mr TEAGUE: The top table, the first line on the top table—a significant difference.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So the 2022-23 budget of $9.657 million? Which two results?

Mr TEAGUE: The 2021-22 actual, which is $1.447 million and the estimated result in 2022-23.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A local government election is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: It is explained there certainly as being due to the local government election. Do we have an indication of the final cost of the Grant and Mount Gambier plebiscite, as distinct from the overall?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is $27,000.

Mr TEAGUE: That was able to be separately identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not want to run out of time to ask the omnibus questions, so I might take the opportunity to ask them:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2022 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 1 July 2022 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 1 July 2022?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 2022, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2023-24 for consultants and contractors and, for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise whether it met the 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend for 2022-23 to which the government committed and, if so, how was the saving achieved?

7. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2023, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the number of executive staff to be cut to meet the government's commitment to reduce spending on the employment of executive staff and, for each position to be cut, its classification, total remuneration cost and the date by which the position will be cut?

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

What savings targets have been set for 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates; and

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise what share it is receiving of the $1.5 billion the government proposes to use over four years of uncommitted capital reserves held in the budget at the time it took office and the purpose for which this funding is being used in each case?

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

What was the actual FTE count at June 2023 and what is the projected actual FTE count for the end of each year of the forward estimates;

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

How many targeted voluntary separation packages are estimated to be required to meet budget targets over the forward estimates and what is their estimated cost?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2023-24 and for each year of the forward estimates?

13. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

14. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2023-24?

15. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide for each individual investing expenditure project administered, the name, total estimated expenditure, actual expenditure incurred to June 2023 and budgeted expenditure for 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26?

16. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

Budgeted expenditure from the program or fund; and

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

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

Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2023-24;

Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 15 June 2023 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today; and

Are you expecting any reallocations across your agency's budget lines during 2023-24, if so, what would be the nature of this reallocation?

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

What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agency in 2023-24;

What percentage of total procurement spend for your agency does this represent; and

How does this compare to last year?

19. What protocols and monitoring systems has the department implemented to ensure that the productivity, efficiency and quality of service delivery is maintained while employees work from home?

20. What percentage of your department's budget has been allocated for the management of remote work infrastructure, including digital tools, cybersecurity and support services, and how does this compare with previous years?

21. How many procurements have been undertaken by the department this FY, how many have been awarded to interstate businesses, and how many of those were signed off by the chief executive?

22. How many contractor invoices were paid by the department directly this FY? How many and what percentage were paid within 15 days, and how many and what percentage were paid outside of 15 days?

23. How many and what percentage of staff who undertake procurement activities have undertaken training on participation policies and local industry participants this FY?

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Electoral Commission of South Australia and the Administered Items for the Electoral Commission to be complete. I advise that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination.

Membership:

Ms Wortley substituted for Mr Brown.

Mr Cowdrey substituted for Hon. J.A.W. Gardner.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms N. Saunders, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

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

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

The CHAIR: I open the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation portfolio. The minister appearing is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I call on the minister to make an opening statement, if he wishes to do so, and then introduce his advisers. I then call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement, if he wishes to do so, and then go to questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have an opening statement. I am joined by the Executive Director of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Nerida Saunders; Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department; and Andrew Swanson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition?

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 19. I see there a table and at about point 6 on the page, the bottom line of the table, FTEs as at 30 June. There is a difference, an increase, of 8.8 FTE from the estimated result at the end of 2022-23 to budget 2023-24. As evident on the table, that is five more than was budgeted last year? Why is there that increase?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The increase reflects some of the spending priorities that have been foreshadowed in the budget. Firstly, there is a component of FTEs for the secretariat of the First Nations Voice to Parliament. There is a component, as is revealed in the budget, of FTEs for the Aboriginal Justice Agreement. There is a smaller component of FTEs as an increase in the funding for Closing the Gap, and there is again a small component for FTEs in the budget area of remediation of the impact of the River Murray flood event.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps just starting with the impact of the River Murray flood event, and it might be most convenient perhaps to go to Budget Paper 1 for that purpose. I am glad to be guided further.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which page in particular?

Mr TEAGUE: It is not numbered, unfortunately. We might just have to turn one page after the other. We are at page 12, actually—odd pages are numbered. We have Flood Response and Recovery, and in the second column under the bold heading Aboriginal Heritage Protection an amount of $236,000 has been allocated. First of all, seeing as you raised it in the context of FTE, what is the FTE impact of that provision? How much of the provision is taken up with personnel, and what other applications is that funding directed towards?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The FTE impact is one FTE in each of the two financial years of 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Mr TEAGUE: How much of the $236,000 is accounted for by the FTE? Is it just 236 divided by 2?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is 1.0 FTE for each of those two years to do the work to help traditional owners with Aboriginal heritage issues that occurred as a result of the flooding event.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there anything part and parcel of that funding that is in addition to the cost of funding that 1.0 FTE, or is that the whole thing from start to finish?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is almost the whole part of it, for that 1.0 FTE within the department to be able to work with traditional owners to mitigate some of the Aboriginal heritage effects of the flood event.

Mr TEAGUE: And might include provision for that person to get around and have facilities and so on?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is anticipated to be a significant part of that, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: But there is no, as it were—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Capital works or grants funding? No, that is not included here. It is the FTE to work with traditional owners.

Mr TEAGUE: Understood; that is 1.0 of the 8.8. I think the first category that you mentioned was provision for the secretariat. If my memory is correct, there was some consideration in the lead-up whether the secretariat would be within or without Aboriginal affairs. It has obviously come in to land as secretariat within the department.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: To what extent are we able to determine FTE provision for a secretariat that is wholly new, and to what extent is the secretariat drawing upon current FTE and, therefore, the present resources of the department?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The budget provides $1.5 million a year for, essentially, the administration for the Voice, in totality. Just under half of that is 4.0 FTEs for the secretariat. Obviously, being the first time this has been established not only in South Australia but anywhere around the country, it will need to be monitored, but the initial provision anticipates 5.0 FTE for the secretariat.

The range of functions will be numerous and varied: obviously helping provide any liaison with the parliament (as the legislation contemplates) down to some of the nuts and bolts things like booking meeting rooms in Ceduna or Mount Gambier or wherever one of the local Voices might hold its meeting.

Mr TEAGUE: To the second part of the question, there is a provision for 5.0 additional FTE. Is the secretariat likely to be composed of more than that 5.0 and therefore draw from FTE that are currently—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The anticipation is that this will be the secretariat for the First Nations Voice. Of course, I would fully expect when there are questions that the Voice has, just as happens with any other agency (the Coroner's office, for example, who asks agencies for information) that any agency may be asked to provide information that they would do in the normal course of that agency work to requests for information from any either internal or outside body.

Mr TEAGUE: I will come back to the secretariat in a moment. In terms of the other works that you have described, I think you have accounted for 6.0 FTE in 2023-24. The other 2.8, then, to be allocated to those other priority duties—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Those other functions, which are Aboriginal Justice Agreement, which is anticipated 2.0 FTE and—

Mr TEAGUE: Closing the Gap.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Closing the Gap, 1.0 FTE.

Mr TEAGUE: At broad terms, we are at 9.0, but we are thereabouts—8.8. That accounts for those FTE.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. Sorry, the last two I was just going off the top of my head. One of them might be a 0.8, which might account for—

Mr TEAGUE: Understood. The structure of the secretariat, now that it is going to be within Aboriginal affairs, has there been a designation of structure within the secretariat reporting mechanisms and leadership? Is there to be a role in charge of the secretariat? What structures do we know?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the way that it has been contemplated to be set up is to have a director of the secretariat and four staff of the secretariat. They will sit under the Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation so, like anything that sits under there, it will have those reporting mechanisms.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of lines of reporting, those functions will be within Aboriginal affairs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: These staff are allocated to the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division of the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr TEAGUE: As a means of understanding, given that the debate has gone through a process, for better or worse, there will not be a separating off or an independence of the secretariat from other matters of government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As was traversed during the debate, within parliament these will be public sector staff and this is where they will sit in government.

Mr TEAGUE: I think in terms of references to debate, a number of these matters were uncertain at the time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At the time, if I am recalling correctly, but I am happy to go and check, I can remember very distinctly being asked a number of these questions into quite specific detail, I think by your colleague the Hon. Heidi Girolamo as the debate progressed in the Legislative Council, about how the funding allocation that we had anticipated would look, what the funding would be for. If I am remembering correctly, I think it was also traversed that it was the intention that these be public sector employees supporting the Voice.

Mr TEAGUE: And within Aboriginal affairs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So ultimately will the secretariat report within the Attorney-General's Department?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They would sit within Aboriginal affairs, which sits within the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr TEAGUE: The leader of the secretariat, however so described—and I am not sure if it has been identified, then please let me know.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A director of the secretariat or something similar. It is an executive that would contract with the Chief Executive of the A-G's Department.

Mr TEAGUE: Who will the director of the secretariat really then report to? Is that the answer—to the CE of the AGD?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department through the Executive Director of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the secretariat as a whole, we have identified the number of FTEs allocated to the secretariat, the facilities, office infrastructure, all the rest of it. Is there a similar intent to accommodate those FTEs within existing officers of the agency?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is yes.

Mr TEAGUE: To the extent that there are facilities provided across the state, is there specific provision or plans to have any new locations for the secretariat from which the secretariat might function in other parts of the state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no anticipation or budget allocation for a permanent office in any other parts of South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: In that case, is it anticipated as a necessary consequence that at least the State First Nations Voice would be meeting within facilities provided by the secretariat within Aboriginal affairs, or is that ad hoc, to be determined in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer to that is no. As I said, some of the roles will be as necessary for the secretariat to book meeting rooms for the regional Voice in Ceduna or Mount Gambier or Coober Pedy, for example. It might be that there are government facilities that could be utilised for meetings when they occur in Adelaide for the State First Nations Voice. Equally, the State First Nations Voice could choose—and I suspect there is a chance for some meetings each year—not to meet in Adelaide or in the CBD, in the same way as local voices would need to—

Mr TEAGUE: It will determine what it does from time to time, where it meets and so on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed.

Mr TEAGUE: To the extent that there is budgetary provision for that, they will make that call.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Things like travel and accommodation to attend meetings and the booking of meeting rooms are anticipated in the budget for the First Nations Voice. As I said, it is about $1½ million a year for the administration and a bit under half of that for the FTEs that we have been talking about.

Mr TEAGUE: The secretariat meanwhile will operate from within the agency, from accommodation in Adelaide.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the anticipation, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: It may, or parts of the staff of the secretariat may travel to provide that secretariat function?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. It probably would not surprise the member that somewhere just under half of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in South Australia is residing outside Greater Metropolitan Adelaide. Members of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division regularly travel necessarily outside Adelaide to regional and remote areas of South Australia: from Coober Pedy to Mount Gambier to Ceduna to Kalka, Pipalyatjara and every point in between. It is something that is by the very nature of the diverse locations in which Aboriginal people in Australia live and a necessary element of the work of Aboriginal affairs as it already stands, and this will be no different.

Mr TEAGUE: I want to turn to a couple of particular topics, the subject of election commitments that find voice in the budget. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 18. We see there, under program 1, the highlights and then the targets for Program 1: Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. I refer first to the fourth dot point under highlights. I have some questions about monuments. A highlight of 2022-23 was:

Consulted with South Australians on the design and the delivery of new Aboriginal monuments.

We then see under targets, at the third dot point, that one of those targets for 2023-24 is:

Identify the first six Aboriginal South Australians to be honoured with a monument or statue and propose suitable locations.

It might perhaps be helpful to refer to Volume 5 to see the funding that has been set aside. I might have to go back to where we were this morning in terms of the 2022-23 Budget Measures. I will not impermissibly do so perhaps, but I think we are all clear on what was provided there: $500,000 in 2022-23 and then an estimate of another $500,000 in 2023-24 for these two years. It is a budget measure from 2022-23. The short point is this: how is that progressing and, to the extent that there is any kind of apparent overlap between a highlight from last year and a target from this year, what has been the application of those funds, how far progressed are we and so on?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the highlight from last year, there was a significant body of work that was undertaken consulting around South Australia about views of South Australian Aboriginal people and communities about who might be appropriate people to be commemorated with the statues and monuments policy. That was a body of work that has been published. It is intended once the inaugural First Nations Voice is elected to seek their views as well and then there will be a not insignificant body of work to consult with the families of those who might be nominated as the inaugural people to be commemorated in those statues and monuments as part of this year.

The majority of the funding that was allocated in the last budget is sought to be carried over to the next budget year. Soon after the election when the first budget was handed down there was a nominal allocation of half of the $1 million put forward to the 2022-23 year and half of that to the 2023-24 year. It is expected that the majority of the nominal half of it for the 2022-23 year will be carried over to the 2023-24 year, when hopefully the substantial work on starting with this policy as to the actual choosing and then commissioning of the monuments and statues begins.

Mr TEAGUE: For context, going back, I indicated that we are talking about matters of election commitment. It was made clear that a Labor government would commit that $1 million. I think you have just indicated that the bulk of the $1 million is still to be applied, and for the reasons you have described; I understand the context. At the time of that commitment, there was an indication:

It's time that leaders like David Unaipon, Lowitja O'Donoghue, Yami Lester, Gladys Elphick and many others were recognised for their outstanding contributions.

I take that as a form of generality in the context.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed. It was an indication in the development of the policy. Obviously I was involved in discussions with Aboriginal leaders and these were some of the names put forward when we were discussing the merits of the policy, which was warmly embraced. As the member has correctly pointed out, these are not commitments. These were generalities over the last 187 years and the people in South Australia we have come to know as very significant Aboriginal people in this state.

Mr TEAGUE: Appreciating that, and the indication that this might be a question that is put to a First Nations Voice once it is elected, can one track forward to say, 'First of all, there is no commitment to anybody that has been made already'? This subject has come up in other contexts over recent months and I do not want to foreshadow anything. First of all nothing has been committed, as I understand it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As part of this new policy, there has been no commitment for expenditure of funds from this policy to date.

Mr TEAGUE: Got it. We are all racing to catch up with an announcement that has been made only a few hours ago about the rescheduling of the election. But in those circumstances, is it anticipated that the money—$1 million—will be spent this financial year in the context of consulting with the Voice, settling on the subjects of the monuments and making further progress?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is possible but it may be carried over further. As I have said, there was a nominal allocation across the first two years since the election of the $1 million, but it may well be that there is a carryover further into the next year. This is certainly an area where I think many people, including myself, are determined to get it right and not do it in undue haste that would jeopardise that name.

Mr TEAGUE: Just in rough terms, if we follow that course through, we are anticipating the possibility of broadly all those funds maybe finding themselves in a 2024-25 budget in those circumstances. Not much has been spent, in other words.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. Certainly, there is a majority of it remaining, and we will see how it develops this year. But, as I have said, this in particular is an area where we very much want to consult with Aboriginal people and, importantly, consult particularly with families of some of the people who might be nominated before we—

Mr TEAGUE: Has there been any work done at all in that regard? Is there anything that has actually been done that can be presented to the State First Nations Voice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There was a whole body of work that was done during the course of last year in terms of consultations that visited places in South Australia, or online consultations. So, yes, there is a body of work that—

Mr TEAGUE: Did that come at a cost?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A very small cost.

Mr TEAGUE: Whatever cost it was, it was coming out of the first 500; is that right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. I am happy to double-check this, but my advice is that the functions of work performed there did not come at a cost to the first 500. I am happy to double-check that. It is either very, very minimal or no cost, but I am happy to take that away and double-check it.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying with those election commitments, I am still at Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 18. The second dot point under highlights for 2022-23 is as follows:

Explored mechanisms to underpin Treaty process and a Truth Telling process.

I will try to word it accurately, but broadly the election commitment was to spend $2 million on what has been described as restarting a Treaty process.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, it is $2 million on a response to the Uluru Statement, on an SA basis. So that is Truth, Treaty and Voice.

Mr TEAGUE: Let me perhaps be clear on what I am drawing that from. It is a turnabout, but on the face of the Labor Party's policy document, election commitments, I read: 'A Malinauskas Labor government will, over our first four years, invest more than $2 million to restart the Treaty process.' That is a standalone item. I realise it is expressed in a—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, we do not have the benefit of referring to it here, but I would be surprised if it was not referred to in last year's budget papers as the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Mr TEAGUE: I take that on board.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, a not insignificant component of that is restarting a Treaty process—that is very correct.

Mr TEAGUE: I take that on board. I am perhaps referring to it for my own benefit to explain the use of the word 'restart'. The fact is that it is here described, at least, as a standalone item—restarting the Treaty process and $2 million applied to that—and we see, as a highlight of 2022-23, the exploring of mechanisms to underpin the Treaty process. Is it possible to identify what those were, the extent of the work and the cost of doing so and therefore get a handle on how that $2 million is being spent and to what portion?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take it on notice to get a bit more detail for the honourable member. Certainly, that has been applied, as I have said. I think it is the case that it would have been described in last year's budget as the state-based implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The three elements in the statement—Voice, Treaty and Truth—are defined sequentially, as we have from many of those involved with the Uluru Statement and from those who are involved since in starting with the Voice. Work undertaken by the Commissioner for First Nations Voice certainly has been part of the budget allocation for the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

It is something that we have said on numerous occasions. It is on the public record in a number of places that we have agreed with the vast majority of delegates, those 250 delegates at Uluru who met in May 2017, and in much of the writing and the thinking that has occurred since there is a very strong logic in the Voice in sequence being the logical starting point.

There has been work that has already started, particularly around looking around Australia and internationally at those other two aspects of Treaty and Truth to inform us, but we are keen to have, as I said, the logical sequence, as most people have agreed, the Voice in place that can then help provide some advice about the processes that we follow for those other aspects of it.

Mr TEAGUE: I realise it is discursive in terms of when we are talking about highlights and targets, but I do not see there a target for 2023-24 that is, as it were, a corollary to the highlight of 2022-23.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would not take targets as being an exhaustive list of all that governments or departments are ever going to do or that is all that they can ever be confined to doing in that particular year. That sort of reading down I do not think is how these things are intended.

Mr TEAGUE: A sage observation, and one that I think we might all adopt. It certainly was not the intent, but I suppose, given the fact that there has been this $2 million identified and a highlight identified for 2022-23, the question might then expand beyond to, as the minister says, those aspects of work that might not be there described. Is it possible to identify an amount of the portion of the $2 million that is anticipated to be spent? If so, for what deliverable?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A very simple answer is not yet. Certainly, I think the honourable member referred to restarting the Treaty process. In I think it would have been the end of 2016 the then Weatherill government committed to a Treaty process. A lot of work was undertaken by a Treaty commissioner in discussions with Aboriginal nations across South Australia. Again, like our Voice, at the time that was Australia-leading work that really did not have a precedent. We were doing things for the first time in South Australia in that space.

Of course, since then we have had a change in government and a change in priorities. A new government did not see that as a priority and stopped the process. We have done work since we have come back to government looking at other jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, which is more advanced in the Treaty space, but also jurisdictions like the Northern Territory, which has had a Treaty commission report, the Treaty commissioner.

Queensland has announced progress in this work. New South Wales with a change of government has committed to this. There are aspects of elements of agreements in Western Australia: the South West Noongar agreement in WA has a lot of features that academics and others have seen as very Treaty-like, even though the word is not used in that agreement.

There has been some dedicated work undertaken since returning to government about what has happened over the last four years, five years in Australia in terms of the Treaty discussion and the Treaty process, but also internationally. New Zealand and parts of Canada, particularly British Columbia, are possibly the most analogous to the Australian situation about how we would look to the work that had already been undertaken, primarily in 2017, to use that work to inform us but with a close eye now on what other jurisdictions are doing in the Treaty process.

As I said not long ago, most people who have thought about this and written about it since the Uluru Statement have thought the sequence of Voice first is the logical place to start, as we do, and that can help inform us about the processes that we would undertake with the other parts of it. I do not want to give a misapprehension that an elected Voice body will be a Treaty negotiating authority. That is not the intention. That is more analogous to parts of what Victoria are doing, but we think it would be worthwhile seeking an elected First Nations body's views about the process we might use to continue with and restart Treaty discussions in SA.

Mr TEAGUE: I take that as some extrapolation on the second dot point in terms of highlights for 2022-23 and as an exploration of mechanisms, and that might have gone—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is primarily the work that has been undertaken in 2022-23, that jurisdiction comparison. One of the things that will happen in 2023-24 is that we will have that elected Voice in place and will be able to talk to the Voice about the process that we undertake to continue the other two elements of the Uluru Statement.

Mr TEAGUE: Or listen to the Voice, I suppose.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, indeed. That is the whole point.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer back to the last estimates in this regard. In terms of the mechanisms to underpin the process, I think the minister indicated that it is likely to be a whole-of-state treaty or the possibility of a continuation of individual group treaties, as was the case in 2016-17. I think your indication then was that it might be too early to say, and it sounds like it is still too early to say and that the establishment of the state First Nations Voice has become, as it were, a precursor to many things that—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We just think it is a logical sequence in our commitment to the three tenets of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—as I think the vast majority of people involved in this place do.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the short point there that the bulk, if not all, of the $2 million that has been allocated to restart the Treaty process remains intact?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I undertook to take it on notice to get further details, but a part of that has been expended on the preparations for the Voice, the consultations that have occurred for helping set up the Voice. There would have been part of that $2 million that has been expended on helping to set up the Voice. I am happy to take on notice the—

Mr TEAGUE: I am somewhat surprised that that is distinct from the $2 million to restart the Treaty process.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the budget from last year in front of me but, as I say, I am pretty sure that the budget and the papers I have talked about the $2 million being for the commitment for a state-based response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart: Voice, Treaty, Truth.

That is $2 million over four years, and part of that would have been expended on the preparations and consultations for setting up of the Voice. There will certainly be a significant amount that will be remaining once the Voice is established and, as we traversed less than hour ago, there are fresh budget allocations for the election of the Voice, for the Electoral Commissioner to conduct elections, and there are fresh and new budget allocations for the administration of the Voice.

But part of that $2 million over four years for the Uluru Statement from the Heart has gone towards the necessary work that has been developed, over and above the ordinary course of the business of government, in setting up the consultation and preparations for the Voice.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not understand that answer to refer to a fresh budget allocation an hour ago; you were referring to the analysis an hour ago in terms of—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, sorry. I just want to be clear that the cost of running elections does not come out of that $2 million, and the cost of the five FTEs we talked about does not come out of that $2 million.

Mr TEAGUE: No, there is no suggestion of that. If there is a question or a proposition that that all might make good, it is a question as to what if any of the $2 million has been spent at all. I am certainly not suggesting that part of it has been spent on any of the other things we have interrogated.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Some has been spent in the preparation for the Voice, the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, the consultations that have taken place. However, as I say, I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you; and that is with a view to the possibility to particularise what is left in the kitty, as it were.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will provide the costs so far that have been taken out of there and then what we will do is we will get $2 million and then we will put a little minus sign and we will punch that number into the calculator and provide it for you.

Mr TEAGUE: Good, thank you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You're welcome.

Mr TEAGUE: At Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 19, I refer to expenses, supplies and services, which is the second line item under expenses, which is in the second half of that table at about point 3 or 4 on the page. There is an estimated result coming in under budget for 2022-23 at $2.8 million, as opposed to the budgeted amount of just over $3 million, and the budget for 2023-24 is just short of $4 million. Do you agree with that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am reading numbers you are reading.

Mr TEAGUE: I might have a relevant date, but SA Health declared an outbreak of tuberculosis in the APY lands in or about the early months of the year of approximately 10 cases confirmed as at 3 March; that was the date I was looking for. The Chief Public Health Officer said that the TB service clinical director, Dr Simone Barry, visited the APY lands to meet with community leaders and service providers, schools and the Nganampa Health Council in response. Was there support that finds accounting in response to that outbreak provided by Aboriginal affairs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the response to the tuberculosis outbreak on the APY lands and around Central Australia is being run out of a group within SA Health.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is entirely an SA Health matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation—as they do regularly, and it is one of the great strengths of having an organisation that has been for many years, certainly for the 20 years I have been involved in Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, very connected to the community. Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation have been able to provide advice on who to contact, who to talk to in communities, the best way to get to places, how to travel and accommodation.

It is certainly one of the great benefits of having a lot of experienced people like Nerida who have built up that community knowledge and contacts to be able to provide that advice and support for other agencies when they need to in areas like the APY lands. It is not always easy to know who to contact, who is around in communities or how to go about engaging the communities.

Mr TEAGUE: We have referred to those line items in terms of supplies and services, which is the best point of connection for that particular question. In terms of the budget provision generally, we have seen that item more or less double from budgeted in 2021-22 to budget 2023-24. In terms of how that is directed, is there any indication of the application of those additional funds? Interestingly, the FTEs have fluctuated, but it does not seem to be explained by the additional FTEs alone.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When the member asked about doubling the 2021 actual figure of $1.936 million compared with the budgeted figure, a large part of that will be things we talked about at the very start: it will be funding the substantial increase in funding for Closing the Gap. Things like the increased effort for Closing the Gap, the extra FTE for the impact on the River Murray, the Aboriginal Justice Agreement, these areas will impact on the spending here. In terms of other areas, I am happy to take that on notice. It may be the case that there is grant funding that flows through the department. I do not have an answer readily available, but I am happy to take that on notice to double-check.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 18, and the first dot point under targets 2023-24. We have covered some of this ground with the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You covered all of it. There is nothing more.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, there might be two sides to the coin. Perhaps there might be an Aboriginal affairs point of view. The number one target for 2023-24 is:

Work with the Electoral Commission of South Australia to enable the inaugural election for South Australia's First Nations Voice to Parliament and support Local and State Voices once elected.

Firstly, as an overarching question, given the timing of the national referendum—it may be that it is a question answered by today's announcement—what if any allocation has been made for promotion or co-promotion of the referendum in the course of preparing for the State First Nations vote?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might point out that if there is not a dot point or a target here it does not mean it is not something the department—it is not an exhaustive list. The dot points are not usually or always in order of importance. If it is the first mention, it does not mean it is most important, although this is extraordinarily important.

Mr TEAGUE: I think for the committee's purpose we get preoccupied with identifying where things are on the page.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the question that has been asked, the funding that the Electoral Commission is using is in relation to the State First Nations Voice election—how to enrol, how to vote, how to nominate. The state does not have a funding allocation for the federal referendum. That is something the federal government is doing.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, it is a matter of clarity, I suppose. Anecdotally, over the time that these processes have overlapped, the subject matter has overlapped and various things. For example, if I can put it by way of a more direct question, the Commissioner for First Nations Voice is engaged in a process of necessary work in the lead-up to the State First Nations election. To what extent is that work overlapping with any work that might be done in relation to the referendum and funding associated with that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the overlap question, that is probably the primary reason for the decision to postpone our South Australian election. It became very clear to me in discussions with the Commissioner for First Nations Voice and the Electoral Commissioner that, particularly since the federal parliament passed the referendum enabling bill a couple of weeks ago which set down that deadline, that window between two and six months for the federal referendum to happen, I think that has crystallised the time frame that is expected, in October or November, for a federal referendum.

Having nominated September for our State First Nations Voice election, there had been a level of confusion, that having a process that would have had Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander South Australians voting for their own people on a State Voice body risked being confused with all South Australians on the electoral roll voting in a federal referendum to decide whether to change the constitution to establish a federal body.

Certainly, that was something that was brought to me by both commissioners (the First Nations Voice commissioner and the Electoral Commissioner) and lines up with views that, particularly recently, have been expressed to me by Aboriginal leaders and Aboriginal elders across South Australia. Of course, the federal parliament having passed their referendum-enabling legislation, they have a time frame.

They have a two to six-month window to hold it in. There is not a discretion to have it at another time, which is why, based on representations and advice, we made the decision to change the date of our referendum to give both those processes clear air to avoid, as I say, that confusion that some were having. I can easily anticipate, and it had been suggested to me, you might have non-Aboriginal South Australians turning up to the First Nations Voice referendum wanting to vote for the change to the Australian Constitution, for example.

To avoid any confusion, it was suggested to us that we should delay our election. It was not, I do not think, practical to delay our election to later this year to, say, December. December is a very busy time for most people. Particularly in very remote South Australia, December is a time when people for various reasons, particularly cultural reasons, will not be able to attend polling booths. Many of those reasons persist until the first month or two into the new year during the summer period, particularly in the Western Desert region of Australia.

Sensibly, the suggestion was to have that election delayed until March, which we have done. I think 16 March, that Saturday, is a nice round way to have it almost to the date that a state election would have been. Given the second election is going to coincide with the state election, it will be around two years of the body being elected before the next election and the next state election.

Mr TEAGUE: Were any of those representations or advice coming to you from outside the state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I reckon in the development of our SA Voice to Parliament I would have talked most weeks particularly to Linda Burney, who I have known for a number of decades, about how we were developing to make sure that what we were doing in South Australia had the best possible chance of fitting into anything that was being developed federally. I think there is a reasonable prospect that, should the federal referendum be successful—which I very much hope it will be, and I will be spending a lot of my spare time over the next few months doing everything I can to ensure that is the case—

Mr TEAGUE: So Minister Burney thought it would be a good idea if—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: After having had representations, I cannot remember exactly when it was, I let Minister Burney know this was what we were thinking of doing, just as a matter of courtesy to tell them. There was a general level of agreement that, yes, that did sound sensible, given there is a reasonable prospect they may only be weeks apart.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of that range of considerations, on the face of it it might appear at first blush somewhat odd that the South Australian process that has been in train for some time—I appreciate on a secondary view the synchronicity of a March date, bearing in mind the lining up with future state elections. The point is that we were on a train to a particular arrangement, and much might have been made of the idea that we were first and all that sort of thing. To what extent was it receptive to the submissions or requests from Minister Burney and others?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The reason that we have decided to do this was representations that members of the Aboriginal community, elders and leaders have made to me—particularly through the Commissioner for First Nations Voice and also the Electoral Commissioner—about the increasing possibility and even likelihood of confusion between the two processes, given that the federal government had passed the referendum enabling bill.

I would like to think that the commonwealth would make way for us and that we are all-important, but I think that might, unfortunately, overstate our relative importance in the commonwealth. I am still pleased that, when we have these elections in March, we will become the first place in Australia to create a body that is an elected body that can make representations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to their parliament and to their government.

In an ideal world, we might have had a referendum early next year and we could have gone ahead with the trajectory that we had planned to have our body set up and functioning by the end of this year. However, as I have said, I take on board and I agree with the representations that have been made, that it would be almost perverse or irresponsible to be creating a body to create a Voice for Aboriginal South Australians and then, when Aboriginal South Australians suggest when the date would be, ignore those voices.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure I follow that last part, but I am conscious of the time.

The CHAIR: Thank you for your response. The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation completed.

Sitting suspended from 16:01 to 16:15.

Membership:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

Ms J. Barbaro, Director, Workplace Integrity, 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 S. Johnson, Director, Enterprise Bargaining, Industrial Relations and Policy Branch, Attorney General's Department.

The CHAIR: Good afternoon. The portfolio under examination is the Office for the Public Sector. The proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination. The minister appearing is the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and to introduce his advisers. I will then call on the lead speaker for the opposition, who I understand is the member for Colton, to make a statement, if he wishes, and then go into questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not wish to make a statement; however, with me I have Erma Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, and Simon Johnson, Director, Enterprise Bargaining, Industrial Relations and Policy Branch. Behind me I have Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive of the Office of the Attorney-General's Department; Josie Barbaro, Director, Workplace Integrity, Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment; and for the last time in his 25^th golden year, Andrew Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department—no, it may not be the last time; he is here again.

The CHAIR: Lead speaker, would you like to make a statement, or do you wish to go straight into questions?

Mr COWDREY: Questions. I draw your attention to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 64, in regard to forward budgets and the expected result this year for the office. The original budget for the office was $2.938 million this financial year. The estimated result is $3.195 million. Are you able to please provide the committee an explanation as to the budget blowout experienced by the office for this financial year?

The CHAIR: I will allow the question, but what the member for Colton meant was the variance in the two amounts.

Mr COWDREY: Overspend, variation on.

The CHAIR: Because the other thing would be commentary, which would not be allowed in the question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the question: what is the $200,000 difference?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It appears it could be the Skilling SA program, but I am happy, if it is not and there are other explanations, to take that away and confirm the difference of $200,000.

Mr COWDREY: It is closer to $300,000 from my—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is closer to $300,000, I will focus my attention even more diligently on it to find the answer.

Mr COWDREY: Your evidence so far is that it is the skilling fund.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the advice I have. If there is something else—

Mr COWDREY: As in you have had more uptake of people wanting to be trainees in the office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am advised it is a time-limited program.

Mr COWDREY: No, but there is an overspend of nearly $300,000, not an underspend.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr COWDREY: With all due respect, you cannot provide any explanation for the $300,000 overspend within the department over the last financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The CHAIR: Do you have another question, member for Colton?

Mr COWDREY: I have plenty of questions, but I am just not entirely sure of the purpose of estimates if there can be no explanation of budget lines in the paper and any understanding of—

The CHAIR: Member for Colton, we have had a very civil committee today and that is the way I would like to keep it. You can be probing if you wish to, that is fine, but I suggest you keep some of your commentary to yourself and just stick to the questions.

Mr COWDREY: My follow-up question was going to be does the commissioner believe that the level of funding her office is receiving in the following financial year, that being in the order of $3.062 million—a decrease on the overspent amount this year but an increase on the original budget from this year—was adequate but, given there is no understanding of what has caused the blowout, I think it would be difficult to still pose that question.

The CHAIR: Member for Colton, can you rephrase your question, because questions have to be addressed to the minister not their advisers.

Mr COWDREY: I did not pose it to the adviser.

The CHAIR: You did.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to be able to further advise that much of the budget is in relation to services that are provided on a cost-recovery basis. Just for the member's benefit—I understand he has not been involved in parliament as long as many others and he is very new to the portfolio—sometimes when invoices are issued, and then costs are recovered, there can be discrepancies in timing that can account for differences. But I am happy to go away and bring back a reply for the new shadow treasurer for his benefit.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, does the government have a clear plan and time line in place for staff who are working from home to return to the office and, if so, can you please table that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Staff have been returning and continue to return to the office post COVID.

The CHAIR: There is no provision for the tabling of documents in estimates. You can actually circulate, if the minister wishes to, but there is no scope for the tabling of documents.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is there a budget line that we are referring to?

Mr COWDREY: We are talking about the Office for the Public Sector, employment in that. There is a reference of, specifically, give or take seven lines in the budget paper. Usually, it has been past practice that there has been a degree of discretion provided in regard to the questions being relevant to the activities undertaken by the commissioner.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Workers who have been working from home during COVID have been returning and continue to return.

Mr COWDREY: Are there any targets that have been set by the government in that regard?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that around 88 per cent of the public sector workforce worked from their usual workplace as of June 2022.

Mr COWDREY: When you say 'usual workplace', is home part of that for some people?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This reflects the fact that around two-thirds of the public sector workforce are in frontline roles, and many back office roles directly support those frontline workers. Many of these roles cannot really be performed away from purpose-built workplaces.

Mr COWDREY: Of those 88 per cent that you have referenced, are they working from the office or their primary place of work full-time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that 88 per cent figure I have given is working at a purpose-built workplace and not from home.

Mr COWDREY: They are working full-time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not saying every single one of those is a full-time worker or what the nature of their engagement is and whether they are part-time or casual. That was not the question I thought that was being asked, but I am happy to answer the question.

Mr COWDREY: Would you like me to rephrase?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr COWDREY: Is the full percentage of the work that they undertake—whether it be full-time, part time or casually—is that 88 per cent figure reflective of those employees working 100 per cent of their allocated hours from their particular place of work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer I am advised is yes.

Mr COWDREY: So 88 per cent of the Public Service are working full time from either the office or their particular place of work, whether that be a school, an ambulance—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I do not know if they are full-time workers, part time or casual. I am not aware of this.

Mr COWDREY: Has the proportion of staff working from home, working from the office or from their primary place of employment changed over the past 12 months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this is the first year that that figure has been collected and that is why we were able to provide the figure of around 88 per cent of public sector workforce work from their usual place of work as at June 2022. I am not able to give the member a comparison as to how that compares over recent years because as I have said this is the first time I am advised these figures have been collected.

Mr COWDREY: Has the office undertaken any work to measure staff productivity or efficiency as it relates to remote working?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. I am advised that there are not those figures, and as I have said this is the first year the figures have actually been collected about the people who are working from their usual workplace.

Mr COWDREY: In the State of the Sector report that was provided by the commissioner earlier in the year, the 2022 report—

The CHAIR: What page are you on? I am trying to find the reference to what you are about to raise.

Mr COWDREY: We can talk about highlights, the release of the leadership framework, and all of these highlights are contained within the State of the Sector report.

The CHAIR: No. If you want your question put, you need to give me the reference.

Mr COWDREY: The commissioner's report indicated that—

The CHAIR: No—in the budget papers. You need to give me a reference from the budget papers.

Mr COWDREY: I just provided it to you: the highlights section on page 51 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1.

The CHAIR: Just hold on a sec and let me just find it. Which dot point?

Mr COWDREY: 'Consulted public sector agencies on new diversity, equality and inclusion and anti-racism strategies'.

The CHAIR: Right, thank you. What is your question?

Mr COWDREY: The commissioner's report indicated that Aboriginal South Australians make up 2.12 per cent of the public sector workforce. Is there any update on this figure and what measures are being implemented to further increase the number of Aboriginal South Australians in public sector employment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the member stated, as of 30 June 2022, it was estimated there were 2.12 per cent of the total workforce being Aboriginal employees. I am informed that that is now the highest number of Aboriginal public sector employees that has been recorded. It also should be noted, as the commissioner has pointed out to me in our regular meetings where this is often a topic of discussion, as it traverses my role not only as Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector but also as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, there is a very good chance that this is an under-reported figure as it relies on employee self-identification, which it does not always have.

It is reported at 2.12 per cent of the public sector workforce, whereas Aboriginal South Australians make up something a lot more akin to 2.9 per cent of the South Australian population, and it is likely to be a figure that is lower than it actually is. I know the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has created a new role of director of Aboriginal workforce participation, which occurred mid to late last year, to partner with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations (ACCOs) to help with their workforce needs.

The office of the commissioner, in conjunction with Tauondi College, is delivering Aboriginal trainee programs, aiming to recruit 100 new Aboriginal trainees by 30 June 2023. I am informed that as of May, when the last statistics were available, 69 of those places have been filled. That program, delivered in conjunction with Tauondi College, combines a certificate III qualification with on-the-job training and provides dedicated mentoring and wraparound support services.

The South Australian public sector employment register enables agencies to recruit from a pool of Aboriginal candidates, and I know that an Aboriginal leadership program was designed to deliver facilitators to encourage leadership of Aboriginal people in the public sector. I know I have had the great fortune of addressing a number of the participants in the program that the commissioner has put in place about the importance of Aboriginal people in our public sector workforce.

Mr COWDREY: I have one further question on the same budget line. In the report, the commissioner also raised concerns relating to people with a disclosed disability only making up 1.37 per cent of the public sector workforce. As you would be well aware, reported public figures show that people with a disability make up 20 per cent of our population. Are further efforts being made to lift that figure? In particular, you referenced disclosure as being one of the primary issues with that. Has there been any further work done to try to promote further disclosure within the public sector?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, it is something I know the commissioner is very active about. As the member points out, with it being 1.37 per cent of the public sector workforce yet almost 20 per cent of the community, it is well under-represented. The SA public sector diversity, equity and inclusion strategy 2023-2026 will be released within the next financial year. It has a vision to build a public sector where everyone belongs and their uniqueness is valued. When it is released, it will provide support to agencies from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to make sure that the strategies that individual agencies are using connect across the public sector workforce. Notably, the strategy will include a disability employment target for the public sector.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to the same page, the dot point referencing the management of misconduct and completed consultations. Minister, can you advise how many code of ethic investigations were undertaken this year and what agencies were involved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the State of the Sector report has the number of breaches. We do not have that report in front of us, but it is a public report so the information is likely to be available. I am advised that the number of breaches is published in the State of the Sector report.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, but it does not identify the relevant departments, though.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and, to the extent that I am able or permitted, see if that can be broken down further.

Mr COWDREY: I am not sure if the commissioner is looking to—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, the State of the Sector report provides some figures that are publicly released. I am happy to go and see if we can find further and better figures, if they are able to be reported.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the same budget line, can the commissioner provide any update in regard to the progress of establishing a workplace investigations panel?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the Workplace Investigations Panel has been established for some time now. It has been established for somewhere in the order of 18 months.

Mr COWDREY: How many investigations have been conducted by the panel to this point?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Twenty-six.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise how many of those have happened in the past financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise how many of those investigations relate to relevant departments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. If it can be reported, I am happy to take that one on notice.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide any information to the committee in regard to outcomes of any of those investigations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that information. Again, I am not certain, given the nature of investigations that may remain active, what I can or cannot provide, but again I am happy to take that on notice and, if I can, provide an answer.

Mr COWDREY: You are not able to give any information in regard to potential terminations or any resultant action taken by government in regard to any of the investigations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Of the 26 investigations, I do not have information as to the outcome and what happened as a result of the investigations. I do not have that. I might just add that one of the reasons I have not said I will take that on notice is that they will be matters for the agencies concerned. It will not be a central keeping of records as to what happened as a result of those investigations. They will be conducted and they will be looked at by the individual line agencies, I suspect.

Mr COWDREY: So, in terms of the process involved, the investigation is conducted by somebody within the panel. That information is then provided to the relevant chief executive to then make a determination as to the behaviour, or is that information provided to a more junior—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is as the member has outlined: it is provided to the chief executive of the relevant agency.

Mr COWDREY: Is there any follow-up from the commissioner's office in regard to ensuring that appropriate actions have been taken on the back of investigations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The involvement of the commissioner's office is the establishment of that panel, not the investigations themselves. That is the responsibility of each agency.

Mr COWDREY: So the commissioner's office has no interaction whatsoever with ensuring that appropriate action has been taken by a relevant department post the investigation being completed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, the commissioner's office role was in relation to the establishment of the panel, the actual investigation, and the result and the follow-up from the investigation is a responsibility of the agency.

Mr COWDREY: The commissioner, though, takes in the initial complaint or amount of evidence, I imagine?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer to that, I am advised, is no.

Mr COWDREY: So it is provided directly to the panel?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the relevant agency would select someone from the panel. As I have said, that has been the involvement of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. The point is the establishment of the panel.

Mr COWDREY: It has been the establishment of the panel only, but there is no further interaction from the commissioner in regard to any of the actions undertaken via the investigation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is anticipated that in the State of the Sector report in the future the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment may report on the effectiveness of the panel but, as I have said, the individual nature of the establishment of the investigation, the results and the follow-up action are the responsibility of that particular agency that has used someone from the panel.

Mr COWDREY: In the commissioner's report, she also outlined that 17,849 public sector employees received separation packages in 2022. That was an increase of 31.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So we can reference that, what budget line are we looking at?

Mr COWDREY: I am happy if you do not wish to take the question. It is in regard to the commissioner's—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is that a budget line?

Mr COWDREY: I am happy to move on. In regard to chief executive appointments, which is a question that has been put before this committee in previous years and this year, again we are working with seven dot points here, so please forgive me and provide some degree of discretion in regard to the questions that you are willing to answer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is entirely out of my hands; it is the Chair who decides these things.

The CHAIR: If you can you tell me which ones, I am happy to see if I can exercise some discretion and allow those questions to go forward. Which dot point is the closest one—

Mr COWDREY: If you would like to perhaps reference dot point 3, which is the release of the Leadership Excellence Framework. This question would involve leadership within the public sector.

The CHAIR: I have read that dot point now. I will hear your question and we will see how we go.

Mr COWDREY: Was the office involved in any recent recruitment of chief executives across government agencies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This comes up occasionally—

Mr COWDREY: It does every year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —in these sorts of committee hearings, and I suspect the questions will continue to be asked and the answers will continue to be given in a very similar manner. In relation to the engagement of chief executives, as a general proposition that is in the province of the Premier. It is not unusual for the commissioner to be asked to help manage recruitment processes, which the commissioner does. If it is on the relevant merits, reasons or otherwise for individual chief executives, that is not something I can answer or take advice to answer in this particular committee.

Mr COWDREY: To give advice in regard to past recruitments, whether there has been involvement from the commissioner's office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, it is not unusual for the commissioner to provide advice in terms of the management of the recruitment process. If there is something in particular where the commissioner provided advice in terms of the management of the recruitment process, I am happy to see if there is anything that can sensibly be added.

Mr COWDREY: So the office has had no involvement in regard to engaging firms in regard to any recruitments in the past 12 months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The office does. The office helps manage various recruitment processes. If there is one in particular the member wishes to ask about, I am happy to see if there was involvement from the commissioner in terms of providing advice about a process. As I have said, the commissioner—

Mr COWDREY: Well, I am only aware of one chief executive appointment over the last—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have not been talking over you, so I would appreciate a little bit of that same courtesy. As I was saying, I am happy to see, if there is a particular area or particular process, if the commissioner provided any such advice or helped with the recruitment process, but the actual awarding of those contracts is not something the office does.

Mr COWDREY: To provide a specific question to you, Attorney, was the office involved with the recruitment of the new Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, the commissioner provided help and advice in relation to that recruitment process.

Mr COWDREY: What help and advice was provided by the office?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was help and advice.

Mr COWDREY: There was no consultant engaged by the office for the recruitment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the Office for Public Sector Employment was involved in helping with proposals, quotations and selection of recruitment firms for that particular public sector recruitment.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise who was successful in being appointed for that recruitment, the recruitment agency?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise that in relation to recruitment for the Chief Executive for the Department for Child Protection, proposals and quotations were sought from five recruitment firms, three of which were South Australian firms. The firm Robert Walters Adelaide was selected to undertake the recruitment process.

Mr COWDREY: I have one final question in regard to industrial relations, which I am hoping you will be happy to take on notice, as it was done last year in regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43, highlights, negotiated public sector enterprise agreements. Are you happy to provide, on notice, a breakdown of EB arrangements across the public sector and their expiration dates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can take that on notice and see what can be provided, certainly.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment completed. I advise that the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department remain open for examination.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Francis, Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr G. Farrell, Executive Director, SafeWorkSA.

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

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

The CHAIR: I now open the portfolios of ReturnToWorkSA and SafeWorkSA. The minister appearing is the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector. Minister, do you wish to make a statement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I do not wish to make a statement. I might use the opportunity to introduce the people who are not quite with me yet but are in the process of joining me. As we speak, joining me are Michael Francis, the Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA and Glenn Farrell, the Executive Director, SafeWorkSA. Continuing on are Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department and Andrew Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department. We have a number of other officials from both ReturnToWorkSA and SafeWorkSA should we need their assistance in our endeavours today.

The CHAIR: Member for Colton, as lead speaker for the opposition, do you wish to make a statement? If not, feel free to proceed with questions.

Mr COWDREY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 45, the first dot point progressing the government's election commitments: with the election commitment around the review of SafeWorkSA, the government obviously recently released their response to that particular review. Are you able to provide any update in regard to the implementation of the 25 recommendations that the government either wholly or in part or in principle agreed to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think there were 39 recommendations from the review that was conducted into SafeWorkSA. Of those 39, the vast majority were accepted, accepted in principle or accepted in part. When the review was handed down, I think there were some four or five recommendations considered by government that we did not accept.

The table I have in front of me is colour coded green, red and orange, which should be self-explanatory in terms of what was accepted or otherwise. There were 25 accepted either wholly or in part, there were four that were not accepted and there were a further 10 in my very nicely colour coded table that are orange that were for further consultation.

One of the recommendations from the Merritt Review was to establish a tripartite committee made up of representatives of the workers, union representatives, representatives of business organisations, as well as SafeWorkSA, ReturnToWork and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. I have attended a number of those meetings and that has been an exceptionally productive forum, looking at, in particular, the sorts of reports and statistics that SafeWorkSA produces that are maybe even more beneficial and useful both to employers and employees.

One of the roles of this committee so far is considering those further 10 recommendations that were for further consultation. No decision has been made yet on those recommendations but I am very pleased with the work of that committee in further considering those 10 recommendations that were marked for further consideration and we certainly will have more to say about some of those in the not too distant future.

Mr COWDREY: Who sits on that committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I will see if we have further details about the exact people who sit on that committee, but it has broad representation, as I said, as a tripartite committee of employer and employee groups and government agencies.

The exact membership of the committee is Kendall Crowe from Business SA, with the deputy to that position, Karen van Gorp; Susan Babidge from the Ai Group, with Amanda Green as her deputy; Estha van der Linden from the Master Builders Association, whose deputy is Will Frogley; Ronan O'Brien from the Motor Trade Association, whose deputy is Katrina Belgrove; Dale Beasley from SA Unions, whose deputy is Kristen Rogers; Mary McCarthy from the United Workers Union, whose deputy is Liz Dooley; Marcus Paré from the CFMEU, whose deputy is Peter Russell; Tanya Newell from the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, whose deputy is Ross Hewlett.

Bronwyn Killmier, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, is represented. There is a representative from the work health and safety professionals' body, being Craig Schopp from the Australian Institute of Health & Safety, whose deputy is Dr Valerie O'Keeffe. There is a representative of ReturnToWorkSA, who is Michael Francis, the chief executive officer, whose deputy is Alice Sobie. There is a representative of AGD, who is Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive of AGD, and Glenn Farrell from SafeWork SA is an ex-officio member of the committee.

Mr COWDREY: You have no concerns with the CFMEU being represented on that committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The CFMEU represent many workers who face serious work health and safety issues. I have to say, from the two meetings I have attended and from reports of meetings before that, the representatives from that particular union, who are SA-based members of that particular union, have been very constructive members of that committee.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to those 10 recommendations that you have referenced, is that the only consultation that has been undertaken in regard to those 10 recommendations taken for further consultation? Has it been done more broadly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am quite certain, amongst those 10 other recommendations, that would have been the main avenue for further consultations, given the broad representative nature of that SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, but there will have been other consultations on some of those aspects, but I am happy to take on notice to see if there is anything more that can be provided.

Certainly, as with many areas in industrial relations that have included stated policies we took to the election, including industrial manslaughter and wage theft, we have consulted extraordinarily broadly with forums, so consultations will not be limited to that group, but it certainly has been a very useful avenue to further focus our mind and get views of employers, employees and regulators.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to target for 2023-24 on page 45, 'Contribute to the work injury reduction trend in South Australia', one relevant to our workplace here, the Premier this morning in his evidence referenced that SafeWork SA had undertaken an investigation in regard to the material that fell from the worksite directly opposite the courtyard to the parliament here. Can you confirm whether an investigation has taken place or not in regard to that incident?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that SafeWork has been involved in making inquiries about the incident to which the member refers.

Mr COWDREY: Has a formal investigation been undertaken?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. I do not want to be pedantic about what constitutes a formal investigation. SafeWork SA officers have made inquiries and have conducted inquiries in relation to that incident. It has not been referred for a formal workplace investigation to the investigations team.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to explain why that was the case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that those initial inquiries have not led to establish a breach of a duty by any particular party, but if they do then that is when I am advised it may be referred to a formal investigator as part of the investigations team.

Mr COWDREY: It was just a circumstance that something fell 25 storeys onto this workplace?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The member obviously has a lot more knowledge of this than I do. He has made his own inquiries and ascertained it was a 25-storey fall of something.

Mr COWDREY: I am just going off the public reports in The Advertiser.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the member has that information, I would strongly encourage him to provide that information to SafeWork. If he knows exactly where it came from, he might also know the circumstances, so if it has fallen 25 storeys I am sure SafeWork would be more than happy to take evidence from the member.

Mr COWDREY: I am simply referring to the publicly available reporting that has been in The Advertiserhere, minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That something fell definitively 25 storeys? Okay.

Mr COWDREY: Is the minister looking to take any further action or provide any further direction in regard to that incident?

The CHAIR: Minister, I actually allowed the member quite a bit of latitude in this area. I think it is beyond the scope of this committee. The member has other forums where those questions can be asked and answered, and this is not it. Can I suggest you move on. I am ruling it out of order.

Mr COWDREY: You are ruling it out of order now, having taken four questions on the matter?

The CHAIR: Like I said, I gave you some latitude hoping you would get back to it, but you are getting even further wider. I have actually now said that is as wide as you are going to go.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, in regard to SafeWork's performance indicator on page 46 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1—in particular, the number of compliance and enforcement visits undertaken by SafeWork this financial year—there have been concerns raised by Business SA publicly and others, I believe, to you directly as well, in regard to resourcing around SafeWork SA inspectors. As you can see, the projected visits and enforcement and compliance activities were to be in the order of 17,000 this financial year; the estimated result is 5,000 this financial year—just on close to 30 per cent of what was projected. Is there a reason for that significant difference between the projection and the estimated result?

Secondly, last financial year there were 9,200 enforcement visits and compliance activities undertaken, so not only have we had a significant miss in terms of the projection for this year but we have had a significant decrease from the activities undertaken last year. Is there a resourcing issue around inspectors within SafeWork SA?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to provide an answer that comes in a number of forms. Firstly, in terms of the 17,000 that was the 2022-23 projection, I am advised that that was an overestimation based on a system error in terms of how things were recorded, that recorded activities that are not deemed to be enforcement visits incorrectly as part of that projection, so I am advised that that was a mistake.

Mr COWDREY: What should that number have been?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That was a mistake that was made. In terms of the number it should actually be, my guess is it would be closer to the 10,000 mark than the 17,000 mark because, as we can see, that is a huge variance from what has happened over the last few years. I completely accept that these sorts of computational system or the boundaries over how things are defined—errors can be made, and I am informed that that was responsible for the incorrect projection figure of 17,000.

I am also informed that there are vacancies that remain in terms of the inspectorate due to difficulties in recruitment. As the member would be aware, it is not just in the public sector regulatory agencies; the labour market is such across the public and private sector that there are difficulties in recruitment and there are vacancies that exist. I am advised that in 2023, SafeWork recruited a further 21 inspectors, which is a very significant recruitment program to help drive their inspector development program, who will be able to contribute to higher enforcement visits hopefully in future years.

Mr COWDREY: How many inspector FTEs were on the books in 2021-22?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For 2021-22 or 2022-23?

Mr COWDREY: Both years, if that is okay.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The most useful information that I have in front of me that I can give the member is in terms of FTE employees in the compliance and enforcement part of what SafeWork do. The actual for 2021-22 was 98.2; the estimated result for 2022-23 is 102.9.

Mr COWDREY: Is that inclusive of the 21 additional recruitments you mentioned?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the 2023-24 budget, the FTE equivalent employment for compliance and enforcement is budgeted at 117, so that extra 21 will obviously form part of that target for 2023-24.

Mr COWDREY: So between 2021-22 financial year, when there were 9,200 compliance and enforcement visits undertaken, there were 98.2 FTEs, and the following year, this financial year, there are 102.9 FTEs, so over or very much on the boundary of five additional FTEs, yet the compliance and enforcement visits nearly dropped by half.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the reason the anticipated result has dropped is that it is related to the information I have just previously given on advice of the new inspectors. There was a large turnover of inspectors, and the training required for inspectors to perform compliance and enforcement visits is such that there is a not insignificant lag before they can do that. All the new ones who are going through the process will not be in a position to have all the powers and functions that a fully qualified inspector who has gone through all the training will have.

Mr COWDREY: Are you confident that the 10,000 estimated projection for next financial year will be met?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised by the agency that that is their ambition, yes.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to compliance notices, I refer to the same table and the next line down. Perhaps I will ask it this way to make it easier: is there any explanation that is any different than what has been being provided in terms of the FTE contribution for the reason of missed projection in terms of compliance notices issued?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the member is characterising it correctly, that is, for the very same reasons we have explained before: new inspectors are coming on, the powers of inspectors and the turnover in a tight labour market are reflected there. One will notice in there that what is different are the projections for 2022-23 and 2023-24. What we have been talking about in terms of compliance and enforcement visits, where it was 17,000 down to 10,000, we do not see that replicated there. As I explained, the system error that wrongly put down the projection of 17,000 does not occur for the one below.

Mr COWDREY: In the last 10 minutes, I might move to ReturnToWork.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They thought they were getting off scot-free.

Mr COWDREY: Michael never had such a run unfortunately.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I did just tell Michael I might dock his pay this afternoon for not having any questions asked.

Mr COWDREY: I have one final question in regard to SafeWork. Are there any additional plans in terms of additional inspectors for the coming financial year? How many of that FTE still remains unfilled? You talked about aiming for 117.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am advised that recruitment is underway for a further two inspectors and a further two investigators.

Mr COWDREY: Would you also provide on notice, given you do not have it here, a separation of the compliance branch numbers and the actual inspector numbers for FYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that away and see what I can provide.

Mr COWDREY: Chair, this is one where I may need your forbearance because I think there is one single reference to ReturnToWork in the whole of the budget papers, as we find each and every year.

The CHAIR: What, you mean you want me to be really kind to you?

Mr COWDREY: You can interpret that as you wish, Chair. In regard to ReturnToWork—

The CHAIR: Give me the reference first and then I will decide whether the question is okay.

Mr COWDREY: At page 78 of Budget Paper 3, ReturnToWork Corporation—the one and only reference to it in the budget papers—are you able to confirm the total headcount and actual FTE for the organisation as of today?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the budgeted FTE count for June 2023 is 275. I am further advised that the actual FTE count as of May 2023 is 270.

Mr COWDREY: There are five unfilled vacancies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, budget for June 2023 of 275; actuals of May 2023, 270.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise what the current scheme funding ratio is?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that as of 31 December 2022, the scheme funding ratio was 92.7 per cent. I am advised that the forecast for the end of this financial year is 93.5 per cent.

Mr COWDREY: When was the last time that Finity provided actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA?

The CHAIR: Which dot point is that?

Mr COWDREY: There is only one dot point.

The CHAIR: In the whole budget paper?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that question relates to the full-time equivalents.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that Finity as the actuaries provide twice yearly advice to ReturnToWorkSA on the scheme, but I am advised that they have regular advice about various aspects of the scheme that is provided. But the major advice and the valuation in relation to the scheme occurs twice yearly.

Mr COWDREY: And the last time that occurred was December?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, December 2022, giving rise to the figures that I have mentioned as to the funding ratio of the scheme.

Mr COWDREY: Yes. In regard to unfunded liability, have there been changes there? Are you able to outline for the committee the unfunded liability as at December 2022?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We can take a few minutes getting numbers or I can provide that on notice, but it will be 92.7 per cent of whatever the full funding of the scheme is. I am happy for you to ask questions, and if we can get it by the time we finish I will provide it. If not, I will bring that on notice if the calculators work quick enough before we finish.

Mr COWDREY: Would you be happy to take on notice as well the number of claims that have been received this financial year compared to last?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We might have those. Yes, in fact I can provide advice for the member that, as of December 2022, at the scheme funding ratio of 92.7 per cent, the net liabilities of the scheme were $307 million. Sorry, the question was number of claims for this year compared to last year?

Mr COWDREY: Yes. So the unfunded liability was $307 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: $307 million at a funding ratio of that 92.7 per cent.

Mr COWDREY: Do you have the projection for end of year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The projection for the end of the year is a funding ratio of 93.5 per cent. Again, we may get the answers by the time we finish of what the scheme—

Mr COWDREY: Claim numbers are probably more important, if you are able to provide the final result for last financial year and estimated result for this financial year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It might be that I have to provide the actual numbers for the member. What I can provide is, to the end of May, the claim numbers are 0.5 per cent—so half of 1 per cent higher this year than at the same period last year, so it is very similar to last year. I do not have the absolute numbers but I am happy to go away and look for them. In fact, I can give the actual number—13,183 for the year to date, as at the end of May.

Mr COWDREY: I take it the government is still committed to ensuring that the annual premium remains under 1.9 per cent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As we have said in the past, the changes that this parliament decided to make I think were a bipartisan endeavour. The advice we received at the time was that the combination of those changes, which included the ability for the combination of injuries—as the Supreme Court in the Summerfield case had said—to happen under the legislation as it stood, combined with the increase in the whole-person impairment threshold from 30 to 35 per cent. As we said at the time, our advice was that that should be capable of seeing the scheme remain under that figure.

The board determined a rate of 1.85 per cent last financial year, which was substantially under what the actuarial advice said it was capable of remaining under. That was a result that I think bore out what the advice was at the time.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to Budget Paper 3, page 77 again, the section 18 review currently underway, when do you expect to have legislation before parliament regarding that review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the member has pointed out, we announced last year that we would be reviewing section 18, that is, that part of the act that deals particularly with returning people to work and the parameters around that. A number of roundtable discussion papers and forums have been held. I would expect legislation certainly this year in relation to the Return to Work Act section 18 review we have undertaken.

The CHAIR: Minister, thank you for your response. The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of ReturnToWorkSA and SafeWork SA complete. The examination of the proposed payments will continue on Tuesday. I would like to thank the minister and his advisers for their attendance today, and I would like to thank members of the committee for attending to ask their questions today. I would also like to thank the parliamentary staff, who have wonderfully supported me throughout the day.

At 17:16 the committee adjourned to Friday 30 June 2023 at 09:00.