Estimates Vote

Department for Industry, Innovation and Science, $67,109,000

Administered items for the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science, $10,891,000

Attorney-General's Department, $114,607,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $158,992,000

Minister:

Hon. A. Michaels, Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Reid, Chief Executive, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms N. Kilvert, Small Business Commissioner, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms P. Chau, Executive Director, Portfolio Delivery, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Mr C. Markwick, Executive Director, Industry and Workforce Capability, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms K. Calaby, Director, Small and Family Business, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Mr M. Smith, Director, Finance and Investment Services, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Ms A. King, Manager, Corporate Operations, Office of the Small Business Commissioner, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science.

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

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee A. I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of this land upon which the committee meets today and pay our respects to them and their cultures and to elders past and present.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers; is that correct?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr BATTY: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership are notified as required. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 8 September 2023.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of up to 10 minutes each, if they wish do so. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are required to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution.

The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that it must be purely statistical in nature and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament website.

I now open for examination the Office of the Small Business Commissioner, Department for Industry, Innovation and Science. The minister appearing is the Minister for Small and Family Business. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and call on the minister.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I would like to introduce the advisers around me. We have Nerissa Kilvert on my right, our Small Business Commissioner, and we have Adam Reid, the Chief Executive of DIIS. Callan Markwick is our Executive Director, Industry and Workforce Capability at DIIS. Behind me, we have Phuong Chau; Kathryn Calaby, who is the Director of the Office for Small and Family Business; Martin Smith; Ashlee King; and Andrew Swanson, who is the Chief Financial Officer at AGD.

I will not make much of an opening statement, other than to thank all these wonderful people for an incredibly hardworking year, particularly in the small business space. We have done a lot of work in what will come out on Friday with our Small Business Strategy, which I am really looking forward to. There was a lot of work going into that around the state, with round tables and surveys and all sorts of work that went into it, so thank you to everyone who put in a huge amount of effort, including Ryan Shepherd and Stephanie Wasley. I dragged Steph around the state, helping us with round tables. Thank you to everyone who put in an effort to what will come out on Friday.

I am very pleased that the Treasurer gave me an extra $6.5 million to roll out the strategy, so that brings us over $14 million to commit to small business over the forward estimates, which is something we will make very good use of. That is all from me.

Mr BATTY: I will not make an opening statement. I will just get stuck into questions, beginning on Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 171, and the table with the program summary and expenses, where we saw a budget of $4.5 million last year but expenditure closer to $16 million. Can the minister outline the difference in those numbers and what we can account that overspend to?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Primarily, it is the flood money. As you will see in the notes, there was an $11.5 million increase in total expenses compared with budget primarily due to the disaster recovery support that has gone in there. There are some other adjustments in there as well. There was an $8.4 million decrease in the 2023-24 budget compared with the estimated result for 2022-23. Again, that is the flood money spent in the 2022-23 year. Hopefully, that will not need to be spent in 2023-24. That is primarily what those figures relate to.

Mr BATTY: I can see the reference to the flood money being $10 million in the third to last dot point. Is there any explanation for the additional $1.5 million overspend?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: It is an adjustment of all those numbers that are in the explanation, I think. A large bulk of it is the flood money. Some of it is in programs that were rolled out this year—programs that have been rolled out, announced—and part of the strategy that we have managed to roll out a little bit earlier; that comes into that figure.

Mr BATTY: If we stick with floods perhaps for a moment, and you might need to take this one on notice, are you able to provide a breakdown of the expenses that were incurred in relation to the flood event?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, I can do that for you. As of yesterday, these are the numbers. For small business, 410 small business grant applications were approved: a total of $4.59 million. I can break that down for you with the Business Early Closure Grant, 110 applications were approved and that is $1.7 million. They were the ones that, leading up to the floods, if you knew your business was going to close we had those grants available. For the Generator Grant, we had 333 applications approved, at $541,522. There were household grants and business grants in that. The business grants, we had 128 approved for $442,462.

For the industry support grants, we had 150 applications approved to a value of $1.5 million, which is excellent. The flood recovery grants, we are expecting more of those to flow through. One of the things we heard was that a lot of the small businesses on the ground are still dealing with insurance companies, still getting quotes for their repairs and things like that, so we are expecting more of that to come through. One of the adjustments we made for feedback was to leave that open until 31 December this year, so we have extended that, but at the moment we have had 33 applications approved, at $876,168.

Mr BATTY: What was the average processing time for the grants in connection with the River Murray floods?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: My advice is that once the grant is approved it is processed and paid out within five working days of that grant.

Mr BATTY: How long does it take for a grant to get approved?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: As you would understand, often the department needs to chase up further information, so it really depends on the quality of the application to start with and what extra information was needed, so I am not sure I can give an answer to that.

Mr BATTY: Are there any applications outstanding?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There are still some outstanding. For the Early Business Closure Grant, that is closed and there are no outstanding. Generator Grant, again no outstanding. For the Industry Support Grant, there are nine under assessment at the moment. For the flood recovery grant, there are 31 under assessment at the moment. Again, most of those flood recovery grants I think we are working on getting more information for those with insurance quotes and things like that.

Mr BATTY: What expenditure is budgeted for this financial year for the River Murray floods?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Do you mean for 2023-24, the one we are in now?

Mr BATTY: Yes.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There is $1.757 million budgeted.

Mr BATTY: Is there a breakdown of what that budgeted expenditure is intended to be spent on?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Of the industry support, the flood recovery and I guess the rural business support counselling, the financial counselling.

Mr BATTY: I will turn to Budget Paper 5, page 52, and the Small Business Strategy you mentioned in your opening statement. I see that $400,000 has been allocated for this year. Are you able to provide a breakdown on what that is going to be spent on?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That $400,000 is the cyber uplift program that we are rolling out with the Australian Cyber Collaboration Centre. It is the foundations program that we have gone out to market with and will be announcing shortly. The Women in Business Program is part of the strategy but not part of that budget line because it is an election commitment, and it is also on top of the existing budget of $2.166 million and the million dollars for Women in Business.

Mr BATTY: So it is an additional $400,000?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr BATTY: Does that explain why it grows so significantly in the forward estimates—this is just $400,000 of new money?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Correct.

Mr BATTY: Are any events or government advertising within that budget connected to the launch on Friday or beyond?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There will be a launch on Friday morning down at the Adelaide Oval. We are expecting a good crowd of industry stakeholders and small businesses to attend that. Part of this is networking as well. That is a real need for small business, particularly those microbusinesses, to be able to build those networks. For example, in the Women in Business Program we partnered up with the Port Adelaide Football Club for their HERstory: Business Collective. That is a series of four, I think, networking programs throughout the financial year. Part of the program is actually intentionally to be able to help small business owners build those networks.

Mr BATTY: And government advertising?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There may be social media. I do not believe there is government advertising. There will be marketing—primarily, I suspect, social media marketing—but not under DPC government advertising.

Mr BATTY: You mentioned the Women in Business Program, so I might turn to that back at Budget Paper 4, page 170. I will just ask a few questions about the various streams of this program, starting with the Women in Business Foundations Program, which I understand is for women in the early stage of their business career. How much has the department funded the Adelaide Business Hub to deliver that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The Adelaide Business Hub is $999,000.

Mr BATTY: Is that over—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is two years.

Mr BATTY: So last year then, what, $500,000 of the million dollars allocated to the Women in Business Program was given to the Adelaide Business Hub?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I think I might be right to say it has been so successful more of it—$750,000. It was actually much more successful than I think we were anticipating, which is fantastic. We have had 549 women go through that program already, and I think we are expecting 700 across the two years.

Mr BATTY: So last financial year, $750,000 was transferred to the Adelaide Business Hub to deliver that program for 549 businesswomen?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is what I am advised, yes.

Mr BATTY: Was there a competitive tender process for the Adelaide Business Hub delivering that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We went out to ones we identified in the market and we got proposals from various groups to do both the foundations program and the advisory program. The department selected those.

Mr BATTY: What were the eligibility criteria to register for that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I will take that on notice and give that to you.

Mr BATTY: Do businesswomen have to pay to register for that program or pay for any services that are delivered under that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: For the mentoring, I think it is $88 for their four hours of mentoring, which is obviously substantially reduced from what it would be and makes it very available to a range of women.

Mr BATTY: Can you go into a little bit of detail about what benefits those 549 businesswomen who registered for the program would have received over the course of the last year?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The program itself has four hours of mentoring with an expert. They are able to choose what they need their mentoring in, so it might be financial management, it might be marketing, it might be digital presence. They are teamed up with a mentor who knows that area well. That has proved to be very useful; it is not just a generic, 'Hi, I'm a business consultant and I will talk to you for four hours.' I know I have personally had some great feedback from women who have participated in mentoring.

They also run workshops, webinars and things like that for skills development in particular areas. Women can sign up to those free workshops, webinars and things like that. Networking events, as well, are available to those women who sign up to the program. It is really quite extensive. We are really trying to build up that business capability and help them in particular areas where they might need it in their businesses but also, more broadly, building up those networks and building up those skills.

Mr BATTY: Is the intention to fund this program with another $750,000 this financial year?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We have $250,000 left for it. We are going out to see what other programs are available to help supplement that. This is a four-year election commitment. We will make sure we are spreading the load and making sure there is enough in the program, with other support as well, and other programs that will be offered. We are looking at this financial year's programs at the moment.

Mr BATTY: So in the forward years of this program, $250,000 of the million dollars per year of the Women in Business program will go to the Adelaide Business Hub to deliver this program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr BATTY: I will turn to the other stream under that program, the Women In Business Advisory Program. I understand that is for more established businesses. How much did the department fund Behind Closed Doors last year to deliver that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: It is $200,000 for the two years. The first year we had, I think, 38 women go through the program. Many more than that applied. I think there was an interview process that Behind Closed Doors went through to select their 38 and, again, really good feedback from some of the women I have spoken to who have gone through that program.

Mr BATTY: What does going through that program involve?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: For most of them, it is a group mentoring, coaching kind of program. It is usually a three hours once a month program in a room of about 10 women going through what their business issues are and getting that coaching and mentoring with that group. I know Behind Closed Doors runs networking sessions as well, more broadly than that, to bring all their women together in various states to help that networking as well.

Mr BATTY: Do women have to pay to access that program?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I do not believe they do at all. We will check and confirm if that is not accurate, but I do not think they pay for that at all.

Mr BATTY: Did Behind Closed Doors have to tender for that program? How did the appointment come about?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: An expression of interest was the process for that.

Mr BATTY: You mentioned 38 people went through the program. Do you know how many applicants there were?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There were 59 applicants.

Mr BATTY: What were the criteria for awarding scholarships to those 38?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: They were not our criteria. Behind Closed Doors run their interview process looking at the women and selecting the ones they, I think, thought were the best fit. I know we asked them to do some regional women in that program, so I think they took that into account. One of the women I met was from a regional business.

Mr BATTY: The other initiative under the Women in Business line appears to be HERstory: Business Collective Program. Can you tell the committee what that is?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is the Port Adelaide Football Club one I mentioned, which I think is four sessions, networking events and professional development opportunities. I think they are planning on four sessions. We have done one already. The first one I went to was a couple of legal practitioners who basically gave a bit of an information session on structuring and running a business from the legal perspective. There will be others, so a combination of trying to get the networking happening and also capability development.

Mr BATTY: How much was that program funded in 2022-23?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That was $50,000.

Mr BATTY: They ran four events, did you say?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: They have run one. I think they are contracted to do four. There are three more to go.

Mr BATTY: So for the $50,000 last year, though, they ran one event?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, I think we paid them $50,000 for the program to run all four.

Mr BATTY: Can you go into a bit more detail about those four events?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I believe they will be similar to what I went to, which was a lunch down at the club, a group of, I think there must have been about 20 or so women, and then guest presenters and networking opportunities. Of the four events, two will be those smaller events like the one I went to, there will be another smaller one and then there will be two larger ones of about 100 people attending those that Port Adelaide will support

Mr BATTY: How many people went to the event that you attended?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I think it was about 20, something like that.

Mr BATTY: Who gets invited to these events?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: They are part of the Port Adelaide HERstory collective network, so I imagine they are usually Port Adelaide Football Club members in the business space—yes, that is right.

Mr BATTY: Did the taxpayer give any money to the Port Adelaide Football Club to deliver these events, or is it a partnership with them, where they are contributing money, we are contributing $50,000 and they invite their stakeholders?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, it is that partnership model.

Mr BATTY: Are there going to be any additional streams to the Women in Business Program over the forward years? Is there an intention to—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, absolutely. Like I said, we are looking at ones at the moment, looking at the criteria and what we might do now for the next financial year. So, yes, absolutely. It is a really important part of the whole Small Business Strategy, to make sure we have diversity and are supporting our female business owners.

Mr BATTY: Do you have any thoughts on what those additional streams might be? Will they be delivered in a similar way to these three other ones, where essentially external providers are handing out grants or scholarships or tickets to events?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: One area that we know is a problem for women is accessing capital. I think there was a Deloitte study not that long ago for startup funding, and I think it was something like 0.7 per cent of startup funding went to female-owned businesses, which is really quite extraordinary.

We want to tackle that access to capital by teaching or building that capability on financial literacy—how to access capital, how to talk to banks, all those sorts of things, cash flow management. There will be that side of it and there will be a networking side of it as well because that is really important for female business owners, to build those networks in the community. They will probably be the two main streams. Other things will come along that might be useful, and we will tackle that over the next couple of years.

Mr BATTY: Has the Women in Business Program been successful in narrowing South Australia's gender pay gap?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In terms of salaries, I imagine?

Mr BATTY: Yes.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: This is targeted at business owners. What we would like to see is that those female business owners make sure they are maximising their profits; obviously, that will flow through to their income, their profit. We do know more broadly that female business owners tend to have a higher proportion of female staff. I do not know if there are any studies, but my personal experience is that there is certainly less of a pay gap in that scenario. It is the business owners we are targeting to make sure they are uplifted.

Mr BATTY: This time last year you were asked how many female-owned and operated businesses there were in South Australia, and I think you explained that it was difficult to get an estimate of that. I was wondering whether you now have an estimate of that and whether that has changed in the last year since you have been in the portfolio.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We still cannot get that data out of ABS. We know from our survey participants—we had about a thousand participate in the online survey—that about 52 per cent of those who responded were females. We still know there are fewer female business owners than men, but I do not have any data on that and it is very difficult to get it.

Mr BATTY: Other than the 549 women who were assisted by the agency in the Women in Business Foundations Program last year, were any other business startups that were female owned and operated assisted by the agency?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In terms of inquiries into the Office for Small and Family Business, I imagine there were a number of them. We do not have a breakdown of numbers, but the Office for Small and Family Business is really a front door for state government. Kathryn Calaby's team have support officers who not only roll out these programs but obviously support small businesses and point them in the right direction to different sorts of supports.

Whether it be a particular industry association that might be useful, or a particular program that might be useful, they are very good at doing that. We now have, particularly, regional support officers. Kathryn's team has now been broken up, with people focused on particular regions as well, so that will flow through; we announced that in the last couple of weeks.

Mr BATTY: The same question for established female-led businesses: other than the 38 who were assisted under the Women in Business Advisory Program, did the agency assist any others?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Again, it is the same answer. We would not have a breakdown but obviously calls are taken and visits are made out to businesses and things like that. Obviously, a proportion of them are female owned and getting support from the Office for Small and Family Business, which is great.

Mr BATTY: If we turn to those calls that were taken, on page 172 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, there is an activity indicator of the number of businesses supported to build capability. We see in 2021-22 that it was close to 3,000, and then there was a budgeted projection of 2,500 for last year, but we only achieved a result of 906. Is there a reason why that target failed to be met?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The reason for the drop in that particular figure is, if you have a look at the figure up the top on the River Murray flood support, the resources were targeted at supporting those River Murray flood-affected businesses. You can see that shift. You will see the target for 2022-23 up there was 2,000; in fact, almost 6,000 were supported. That is in that top line on that page.

Resources were shifted towards supporting the flood-affected businesses. You will see a substantial increase in what we expect for 2023-24 in the business capability side of it because we will now be able to again reshift our focus into building that capability, which we will do through our foundations program.

Mr BATTY: The activity indicator above also shows a larger than expected result, which is good. That is the number of businesses provided with base-level information resources. What does that mean? How do we measure that activity indicator?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There is a range included in that, but primarily it is phone calls and hits to the website. Australian business licensing (ABLIS) inquiries are in there as well, so that is what that is made up of. The significant jump is again around the River Murray flood-affected businesses.

Mr BATTY: Is that effectively hits on a website?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: And calls.

Mr BATTY: And phone calls?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr BATTY: Are you confident that you can measure the success of the Women in Business Program if we do not know how many female-led businesses there are in South Australia?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, because we are getting feedback, and we are getting through from both the Adelaide Business Hub and Behind Closed Doors. We will review them at the end of their programs, but we are getting data captured as part of that program to see how those businesses are uplifted and how those women are supported through those programs, so we will see the benefit from those participants coming through. We are able to use that to review the programs as well.

Mr BATTY: Would you could consider the program a success so far, assisting 600 women with some four hours of mentoring?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Absolutely. The feedback we are getting is really quite extraordinary, beyond what I expected. I always knew there was a need for it, but what we are seeing is fantastic. I was in Port Elliot on Monday night last week, I think. There must have been 60 business owners at basically an information session for the Adelaide Business Hub, and there was such positivity. Some there were already participants and some were making inquiries as to what the program involves. The uptake on those programs is quite extraordinary and I think quite beneficial.

Mr BATTY: On Budget Paper 4, page 170, the fourth dot point about procurement, what South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for this agency in 2023-24, and what percentage of total procurement spend would that represent?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Behind Closed Doors, for example, is a South Australia-based small business. We can take that on notice for the exact breakdown, but my aim is to use South Australian businesses where we can to provide those supports, services and programs. We are doing that already with the ones we have engaged.

Mr BATTY: Perhaps also provide how that compared with the financial year that has just gone as well. Further on in that dot point, you talk about the agency assisting small businesses with industry procurement opportunities. How has the agency done this over the last year, and how many small businesses has it assisted with industry procurement opportunities?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Because it is not related to my portfolio but is within DIIS, I might get Adam Reid to answer that.

Mr REID: As the minister indicated, it is not directly related to the small business portfolio but is within our industry, innovation and science portfolio more broadly. The Industry Capability Network maintains probably the most comprehensive industrial database anywhere in the country, which includes a number of local South Australian suppliers. As at 20 June this year, over the 2022-23 financial year, the Industry Capability Network facilitated $175 million worth of contracts to South Australian suppliers. Most of those would classify as small and/or family businesses. An additional $25 million went to South Australia-based companies from interstate offices through the Industry Capability Network, which is a national network.

Mr BATTY: I think last year the minister talked about setting aside 1 per cent of government project funding for subcontractors in a support fund to enable the government to pay for subcontractors directly. Has this been set up?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is not a program within DIIS; that is for the Treasurer with the Office of the Industry Advocate. I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr BATTY: I will change the topic but stick with page 170 about the program's objective to support small and family businesses. Has the minister been contacted by any small or family businesses that are tenants in Roma Mitchell House about proposed works at that building? Is the minister able to advise when those works will commence, how long they will take and whether any small businesses who are tenants in that building will be consulted before works commence?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I have not been contacted.

Mr BATTY: Will the minister ensure that small businesses who are tenants in Roma Mitchell House are consulted on how their businesses might be impacted before the government commences work in that building?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We can attempt to make some inquiries. If the member has anyone in particular in mind and would like to pass their contact details through, I am sure I can get the Office of Small and Family Business to reach out.

Mr BATTY: Thank you. I might just spend a few minutes reading out the omnibus questions then, and if I have time I will return to these; otherwise, I will hand over to Mr Teague for Consumer and Business Services:

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 time allotted having expired, I declare the examination of the Office of the Small Business Commissioner and the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science complete. Minister, do you wish to change advisers?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, we would like to change advisers.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr F. Stroud, Acting Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services.

Ms E. Sims, Assistant Director, Regulatory Services, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr D. Allison, Manager, Reform Regulatory Services, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr A. Shirole, Manager, Finance, Governance and Reporting, Consumer and Business Services.

The CHAIR: The portfolio is Consumer and Business Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs. The proposed payments remain open for examination. Minister, do you wish to make any opening statement?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I will introduce the advisers around me. I have Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department; Andrew Swanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Attorney-General's Department; and Fraser Stroud, our Acting Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services. I am sure the commissioner will be reading Hansard, so I note that he is on leave at the moment. Behind me, we have Emily Sims, Damian Allison and Arjun Shirole.

I will not make any opening statement, other than to thank these people for their incredible work for the past financial year. A lot has happened in the world of consumer and business affairs, from residential tenancies reform to a range of other issues that have been dealt with. There have been lots of consumer issues, including building and construction obviously. A lot has happened, so thank you for your efforts.

Mr TEAGUE: At the outset, I understand there might be some corrections the minister might want to note.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, I will make mention of those. On page 50 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, in the activity indicators, number of new birth, death, marriage and relationship registrations—I will just read across—the 2023-24 projection of 46,000 should be 44,000. The estimated result for 2022-23 is not 45,000, it should be 43,800, and the 2021-22 actual should be 42,362 instead of the 43,315 that is mentioned there. The number of birth, death and marriage certificates issued, the projection for 2023-24 is 90,000, the estimated result is 92,000 and the actual result for 2021-22 is 84,985. Fraser might want to explain the reasons why.

Mr STROUD: Thank you, minister. Mr Teague, can I just explain to you in terms of the difference and the inaccuracies in relation to that documentation. Firstly, can I apologise on behalf of Consumer and Business Services. It is certainly no reflection on the staff or any type of cavalier attitude towards the importance of these particular statistics.

In terms of the statistical inaccuracies, if I can firstly turn to the number of birth, death and marriage certificates that were issued. The scenario, unfortunately, in relation to the report running was a scenario whereby it was a situation the report that was pulled was on the basis of the number of actual applications received rather than certificates that were issued. As a consequence of that, I am afraid there has been an overinflation of those figures and consequently they had been reflected and amended as a consequence of what has been corrected.

The other matter that has been affected is in relation to the number of birth, death, marriage and relationship registrations. The scenario in relation to the statistics being inaccurate relates actually to births. The scenario is, unfortunately, that during the course of the process there has been duplication and that is on the basis in relation to births that there is a registration process clearly brought on notification process. There is a notification process, for example, from a hospital of the birth of a child; there is then the registration by the parent of said child.

Unfortunately, during the course of certain report running, there is a duplication of those figures. Importantly, there is a single registration, but that was the issue in relation to the report count that was obtained, so I apologise for that.

Mr TEAGUE: Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 50, further up on the same page, the top of the page, which is the continuation of a table of performance indicators, we see that the top line at the top of page states the percentage of consumer disputes finalised or escalated within 30 days: firstly, in 2021-22, an actual result of 52 per cent with a target for the following year of 80 per cent; however, an estimated result for 2022-23 of just 30 per cent, and despite that, what would appear to be a similarly heroic target for 2023-24. I wonder if there is, in particular, any reason for the disparity between the 2022-23 target and the 2022-23 estimated result?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: What happened was the Advice and Conciliation branch in 2022-23 went through a change process that impacted on its resourcing for a period of time, so the estimated result is lower because of that. What CBS did was prioritise the advice over the conciliation, trying to get a greater benefit to a greater number of customers over that period of time. That was the priority, which meant that number came down. I am not sure if Mr Stroud wants to add anything further?

Mr STROUD: I am happy to answer that, Mr Teague, if you require further explanation.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not know quite what is meant and I see that there is a note there referring to change processes, as the minister has just indicated.

Mr STROUD: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not know if there is any possibility to explain just what they were.

Mr STROUD: Yes, of course. I am happy to cover this point. The Advice and Conciliation branch falls within my directorate. What I can indicate is the fact that obviously within CBS we are constantly looking to try to work in a more efficient and effective manner. As a consequence, it was deemed by myself that a full restructure was required in relation to the branch of Advice and Conciliation.

That took place towards the latter part of last year with a new structure commencing in January of this year. But whilst the new structure commenced, there was a delay in relation to recruitment processes to get the full team on board until April of this year, so therefore there was a hiatus of a number of months when we did not have the full team operating.

What I can say is that, as part of that restructure, the attempt was to focus and separate into a predominantly advice-orientated team for frontline contact. A&C is the public facing aspect to the agency. It is very important that consumers are dealt with in an appropriate time period, so we focus on an advice team and a conciliation team. As the minister has indicated, we concentrated our efforts towards the advice aspect and, unfortunately as a consequence, the preparation work that was required for the conciliations therefore took slightly less of a priority area. As a result, you will see from the percentages the estimated result has decreased to 30 per cent.

I acknowledge your commentary in relation to the estimated target for next year in terms of target 2023-24. We have gone for 65 per cent, which you will note is lower than the target for 2022-23 of 80 per cent, on the basis that we appreciate there is going to be a substantial amount of work for us to get through in terms of the conciliations that remain to be dealt with.

Mr TEAGUE: You mentioned a range of areas impacted by those change processes. Did that impact on investigations as well?

Mr STROUD: This is purely in relation to the Advice and Conciliation branch, so it did not impact on investigations.

Mr TEAGUE: I might come back more particularly to the project, but I gather from that answer, minister, that this was not due to the implementation of digital systems or anything like that.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, it was a restructure of that.

Mr TEAGUE: It was a business management point.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps now going back to page 48, it is obviously core business of CBS, and by reference to one matter in particular, in addition to what we have just heard, we know CBS was required to implement operational efficiencies last year. I understand that it did that successfully and, I think, with an indication that no frontline services were taken away as a result of those being done. To take a recent example, in relation to the investigation into the insolvency of Felmeri, is the minister confident that CBS was able to fulfil all responsibilities that it had according to its program description objectives, including as to time and so forth?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There were a number of consumer complaints coming in before the company went into administration, which were dealt with by CBS. I think there was a senior officer appointed to deal with just Felmeri, so that was happening, and then obviously the company went into administration. So the commissioner himself and Mr Stroud have been active in having meetings with the administrator, to deal with the flow-on effect, and SAFA and QBE as well in terms of insurance claims. There is a related company that is a development company that the commissioner has been dealing with. That relates to a development at O'Halloran Hill as well. A significant amount of work has been done and the resources are there and have been. I do not know if Mr Stroud wants to add anything on that.

Mr STROUD: The only points I would add, Mr Teague, are that on the basis of the intelligence and the data that we gathered the commissioner actually met with the Felmeri Homes group in April. Based upon that conversation, additional information was requested. Hence in May as a consequence and a condition imposed on the licence, there was the administration of that particular group. To re-emphasise what the minister has already stated, there have been meetings with the particular groups and also with the developers involved in the ownership of the road at O'Halloran Hill. We do have a number of officers within CBS who are allocated to this matter.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps more particularly, is there an indication of just how many complaints CBS received in relation to Felmeri?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I know I received a couple of letters myself. Do we have figures of complaints?

Mr STROUD: We may have to take that on notice in terms of the exact number of complaints. I can indicate to you, Mr Teague, that—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I may be able to help. I understand that 38 consumer inquiries around Felmeri were received by CBS in the last 12 months. Twelve of those have been received since the company entered administration. There were 29 formal requests for dispute resolution around Felmeri received since 2015; 13 of those formal requests for dispute resolution were received in the last 12 months—obviously, that is the pressure point.

There was an agreement reached in a compulsory conciliation conference in April, but Felmeri had not yet complied with that agreement before entering into administration. The remaining 12 were received in May-June 2023, and we are expecting more requests to come through. I know personally I have been contacted by a couple of members of parliament as well with concerns about Felmeri.

Mr TEAGUE: I note, in light of that information, I think the minister has indicated 12 consumer complaints since administration. It might be a logical corollary that there were 26 prior. Is there indication as to when the first of those was and what more particularly, led to the commencement of the investigation?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I understand in relation to Felmeri there have actually been complaints since 2014. That is my advice. Obviously, that has ramped up in the last 12 months. I am not sure if Mr Stroud has any information as to what triggered the investigation in terms of numbers of complaints received.

Mr STROUD: I think it was based on the number of complaints that were received, to be honest, and as a consequence of that. We obviously license somewhere in the region of about 6½ thousand building companies and somewhere around 16,000 individual builders, so it is a very broad aspect of work for us, but we do monitor the information that we gather. As a consequence of the information coming in in relation to Felmeri, there were these concerns and hence the commissioner requesting that the Felmeri group attend in April of this year.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, in light of the indication just now that CBS applied a condition on Felmeri's licence in May this year—and I understand it is obviously on public notice—another key point along the journey was QBE ceasing to provide further building indemnity insurance and so on. I guess the question might be asked: why does Felmeri have a licence at all still and was CBS in a position to impose a restriction in May that might have included all of the above, including withdrawal of the licence? Is there anything more that can be said about that?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Mr Stroud might add to what I am about to say. The condition in May was to prevent the company from entering into any new contracts. At that point in time, I think there was a hope that the existing projects would be finished, but it was felt that the financial stability of the company was such that any new contracts were at serious risk. I think there was a hope that they would finish the work they had and help those home owners into their homes.

Obviously, that is not how it transpired. I think that is the issue now, and there are investigations currently on foot within CBS in terms of breaches of the Building Work Contractors Act, which I am not sure I can say anything more on. I do not know if Mr Stroud—

Mr STROUD: Thank you, minister. I think in essence the initial condition was obviously to prevent any further consumer detriment, and it was as a consequence of that condition, that they were not to enter into new contracts, that the business went into administration. In terms of the fact at that point, because obviously they are in administration, they had been working with the administrator, and more recently it has been publicised in relation to there being an extension of time in dealing with the creditors on the basis of there potentially being an opportunity for a deed of company arrangement to be entered into. That is the current circumstance that we are at. As I understand it, the next meeting of the creditors is 17 July, with the submission in relation to that DOCA agreement being on 10 July.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to link, if there is one, in terms of notice and CBS involvement, we see from the administrators' report that CBS involvement was one of the contributing factors to Felmeri coming to a halt. As I said earlier, QBE's cessation of issuing building indemnity insurance was another. Was it possible for CBS to identify that QBE action at the time, as it were, and I understand that was perhaps in February? Is there any action within the resources of CBS that CBS might want to take with more resources? Is there anything further that CBS might have done and sooner, knowing what we know now?

Mr STROUD: From my perspective, I would say that we could not have acted sooner than we did. It is a situation where, once we were aware of the relevant information, an investigation has been launched and obviously the commissioner met with the Felmeri group. As a consequence, we have continued to be involved in the matter on that basis.

Mr TEAGUE: This might become rhetorical, I suppose. It has been reported in the local media, but I think the administrator has observed in clear terms, that Felmeri might have been trading insolvent as early as 30 June 2022. Is it simply a matter of all those pieces not coming fully to light until the administrator has done its work, or was CBS in some sort of balancing act around its investigation, the imposition of conditions and so on? I guess I am exploring whether there are any limits on CBS's capacity to act.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: From my perspective of what has come out from the administrator, even when the administrator was first appointed, I think the level of debt was substantially less than the administrator now thinks. There was a lot of concealment of what the real situation was, even for the administrator. That statement of the administrator I think came out a number of weeks after he was first appointed and first started looking into the matter in terms of their potentially trading insolvent from June 2022. I think a large part of the problem is the way the business was operated by the directors and the concealment of what the true facts were.

Mr TEAGUE: Do we have an indication from CBS, minister, as to when the investigation might be done and what ground it has already covered?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We cannot give you any detail on that, but if there is anything we can provide we will provide it on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: I will mention now the question of improving digital systems. The indication is that that did not have any bearing on the performance outcomes we looked at on page 50. I turn to page 17 for, I think, the best reference of where the work on improved digital systems is to be found. That is at about point 3 on the page. I know I have been chastised for doing this in recent days, but I indicate that the 2022-23 budget set out an anticipated completion of June 2023 at the same item. So where it now says June 2024, indicating a 12-month delay or extension of the estimated completion, are there reasons for that that can be explained?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: My understanding is the project was, I guess, reshaped when the Department of the Premier and Cabinet became involved and it was supposed to be a joint project with them, or they were supposed to lead it. It was a joint project. DPC then changed their priorities, which meant that it was back to CBS on that project, so that meant that CBS would now take the lead on that, and that has caused the delay, so it is just within the department, the process involved in that.

Mr TEAGUE: So CBS is now taking control of that work. I presume CBS is happy about that.

Mr STROUD: I think the situation is that CBS were originally in control of the project, and I think a view was then informed about centralising a government approach to the delivery of projects. Consequently, as referenced by the minister, DPC were then involved in effectively working towards being the vendor with capacity to undertake the project and the solution. Obviously, priorities then changed in relation to the new government and delivery, and as a result it has come back to CBS. We still had the project team in place because that project team was working with DPC, so to that extent we had not abandoned the project in that way.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the cost of the project, I wonder how we are now to interpret the budget provision. In 2022-23, there was $650,000 budgeted for what was then anticipated to be the completion, as I read it, and that was one of several budgeted components. The estimated result for 2022-23 was approximately double that, at $1.2 million, and then there is a touch over $3 million that is budgeted for 2023-24.

We see a delay in the completion of the project but double the budgeted amount spent in the relevant year. What are we to make of that? Has the budget simply blown out, or is it a matter of timing?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I will get Mr Swanson to explain.

Mr SWANSON: The increase in the 2023-24 budget reflects various carryovers, along the same lines we have just been discussing, of the project. You can see there that the vast majority of that funding is expected to be spent this financial year to line up with the estimated completion date at the end of it.

Mr TEAGUE: I think that is apparent on the page, but the question becomes if it was supposed to be finished in 2022-23 with the $650,000 allocated, there is a further not quite $650,000 that has been spent and then another $3 million. It looks as though the project has considerably expanded but within the same overall project cost, so it looks as though there is a bit of push and pull back and forth.

Mr SWANSON: Yes, indeed. There have been some changes in the timing, but overall the project budget for the investing side of things is, I think, the same at just over $6 million, which is what it was last year.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The 2022-23 budget line of $650,000 is not the same as the total project cost.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I understand the $650,000 contributes to the total project cost, which is unchanged, as I understand it. Having perhaps stepped through when the money is being spent, is it possible to give an indication of the headline advantages to consumers that are associated with the particular upgrade?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: What we are looking to provide is for the community and CBS to have improved management of data assets; intelligent workflow solutions, creating maximum efficiencies; powerful analytics and reporting, providing intelligence and assisting to develop regulatory strategies; single integrated managed solution CRM functionality; ongoing capability for local configuration with in-house management; simplified interpretability and data sharing with other South Australian government agencies; and strengthened compliance and enforcement. They are the goals of this project.

Mr TEAGUE: So we wait and see in terms of achievement of those goals, but expectations are that it is shaping up to deliver those improvements, I take it, minister?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: As I understand it, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I think we have already had an indication, getting back to page 50 or thereabouts, that that particular set of system upgrades actually have no impact at all on the consumer dispute finalisation point that we were talking about before. If I turn back to the top of the performance indicators table at page 49, and I think the order of these indicators is one that is repeated year to year, with the first two that are now correlating there appears to be a movement away from the 14-day triaging indicator to a registration and acknowledgement indicator. One has been done away with, and then it has been replaced with what appears to be a shorter time frame but a different action. I just wonder, first of all, what is the intended meaning of the difference between triaging and registering and acknowledging?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: My understanding is the initial point of contact is acknowledged in some way. The triaging actually involves an assessment of what path it should take. My understanding is that the change in that performance indicator is because the triaging activity actually is more properly fitting in within the assessment process. There is an activity indicator of the number of alleged noncompliance matters assessed, and that really overlaps in some way with the triaging process. The better indicator is: what is that initial response time and that acknowledgement to start that process?

Mr TEAGUE: I am a bit slow on the uptake, but do we see the number assessed?

Mr STROUD: You do, Mr Teague. It is under the activity indicators on page 50.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is.

Mr STROUD: It is the second matter down under the heading of activity indicators, 'No. of alleged non-compliance matters assessed'.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Thank you. So the new test then of registration and acknowledgement appears therefore, is it right, to be more of a gateway test involving less than the triaging, but—

Mr STROUD: I am happy to explain, Mr Teague. Again, the Compliance and Enforcement branch comes under my directorate. Back in 2021, there was an indication of the requirements for a full review of that particular area of the business. A report was completed—a very strong internal review document was completed—with 77 recommendations and, as a consequence, one of those was a restructure which commenced in January 2022. As part of the restructure, there was an indication that there needed to be a formalised registration team. They would, as you reference, Mr Teague, be a gateway into the agency for compliance and enforcement purposes. The main aspects in relation to that is obviously registering the file and ensuring there is prompt acknowledgement to the consumer of receipt of that particular matter.

In terms of an initial triage, if you wish to use that term, that would generally be used towards the urgency of the matter's sensitivity, priority status, whether it fits within our strategic priorities and the like. There is a role performed in a triage, and also jurisdictional issues. Clearly, if a matter is not within our jurisdiction it would not progress any further. Following receipt, registration and notification, the matter would then advance through to the assessment team, and hence the activity indicator that has been referenced on page 50. As you will note, the estimated result for this year was 2,990 matters assessed within that unit.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps to complete that line of questioning, it sounds logical, then, to reduce the time frame for that particular activity from 14 to seven—and we will get to the projections on the next page—but the target nevertheless is more modest. So it is a balancing point, is it?

Mr STROUD: I think it is.

Mr TEAGUE: Going back to the line that you have identified in the activity indicators over the page, in the projection for assessment there is outperformance against the projection for 2022-23. I do not know whether that is the same in 2021-22, but if you follow the formula it looks like it was, as well. Again, we have a projection for 2023-24 in the same modest terms, it would appear. Is there any reason for that modesty? It is not a RoGS formula, is it?

Mr STROUD: Can I just say that obviously it is an activity indicator, so ultimately what falls to be assessed, falls to be assessed. There is no performance indicator from our perspective in regard to it; there are variations over time periods. I think that back in 2020 to 2021—and I appreciate there was the COVID aspect then—1,550 matters were the actual matters that were assessed. Therefore, the indicator was put forward as being 2,000. This current year it has been 2,990.

We are reviewing our statistics as to why there is such a high level of matters that progress to assessment. I can also indicate that, in relation to the fuel transparency scheme, there have been a high number of matters that have been assessed as a consequence of that scheme, which has contributed to the figure. I appreciate the comment in relation to it being perhaps a modest projection but, on the basis of us reviewing how matters will be assessed going forward, we feel it is the appropriate figure at this time.

Mr TEAGUE: I might say that it is good to see projections being exceeded. We have just had mention of the fuel price scheme and perhaps the noncompliance indicators that would appear to be a temporal explanation, given that the scheme has now been up and going for a little while. On that point—I think perhaps best connected to the overall objectives at page 48—is there a commitment from government to commit to extending the real-time fuel price scheme?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That was funded in last year's budget to continue over the forward estimates.

Mr TEAGUE: So we are likely to see the same—well, I will not ask you to speculate. But there is an indicator there that there is an understood connection between noncompliance numbers and the scheme. It would appear to be an indicator of the value of the scheme.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In terms of the complaints that resulted in expiations, there were, I think, 270 complaints and inspections resulting in warning letters and 19 expiations being issued. That is off the back of over 1,400 complaints received and 1,800 inspections. With that sort of compliance activity resulting in 19 expiations, at this stage, I think there is a reasonable level of compliance that we can see in the marketplace.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are looking at noncompliance and assessment, and the time frames that are attached to the triaging measure at page 49, we do not see a time frame on assessment; we get an indication as to the number in the period and it being more than projected. Is there any corollary indication about the time that is taken for assessment?

Mr STROUD: I think it is exceptionally difficult for us to set a time, bearing in mind we administer in excess of 35 pieces of legislation. Some assessments are relatively straightforward and some are exceptionally complex, as you would imagine.

Mr TEAGUE: Just having a look at the expenses table at page 48—in fact, it is over to page 49—the second half of that table under expenses has grants and subsidies about halfway down, at about two or three on the page. We see that the grants and subsidies budgeted in 2022-23 were at $620,000 and the estimated result was at $531,000. Is that an indication that the grant programs were undersubscribed and, if so, is there a reason for that?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Mr Swanson might be able to explain more, but I understand it is mainly due to changes in corporate costs allocated to that program in 2022-23 which is the reason for that difference.

Mr TEAGUE: It does not look like Mr Swanson is rushing to—

Mr SWANSON: No. Correct.

Mr TEAGUE: So, you are satisfied, minister, in terms of eligibility criteria for grants and subsidies for the appropriate capacity for those who ought to be eligible to be able to apply and obtain their grants?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I do not think there has been any impact on that. I think they are corporate cost allocations that are impacting that figure.

Mr TEAGUE: I think this goes back to last year, if we have a look at the income side—and we are now towards the bottom of page 48—we see a modest reduction both budgeted and estimated from 2021-22 to 2022-23. The 2022-23 result, by the way, is almost identical to the budget. We are at the second line where it has fees, fines and penalties at the bottom of page 48. We still see in 2023-24 that fees, fines and penalties are budgeted to be a tick under where they were in 2021-22. I am interested in how that has been able to remain more or less steady, I think going slightly backwards in real terms.

Mr SWANSON: The increase in 2023-24 from 2022-23 is mainly due to annual indexation as applied to fees and charges every year. In terms of actual activity for 2023-24, that is something we will likely consider as part of either the Mid-Year Budget Review or the fees and charges process during the year depending on how activity actually pans out. So, if there are any unders and overs as part of that, we will reflect that in the 2023-24 estimated result as needed.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I think the reasonable consistency marries up with the reasonable consistency in applications for licences, for example, or applications for birth certificates. All those things that generate fees for Consumer and Business Services I think are reasonably predictable in a sense.

Mr TEAGUE: Just a small step above the table to the targets for 2023-24, the third dot point is noting a target to 'continue to increase the effectiveness of CBS' gambling regulatory compliance activities'. How is that to be achieved and to what extent? What is the amount of CBS resources committed to doing that?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: How it is to be achieved is off the back of some work that was done, I think in 2021, with an internal review on this. It also marries up with—I think the member would be aware of this—the Auditor-General's Report that was tabled on 30 May. Those recommendations will be implemented as well. The time frame is to break it up into phases. The first phase I think is due to be completed in September this year, the final phase by May 2024. That work is being done in terms of improvements to the regulatory compliance activities taking a much more risk-based approach collecting that data through, so a lot of work has been done within CBS on that.

Mr TEAGUE: One finally—I am conscious of the time.

The CHAIR: The time has expired actually.

Mr TEAGUE: I am in your hands, Chair. It is just a brief final question.

The CHAIR: And I am briefly going to close this session right now. The time allotted having expired, I declare the examination of Consumer and Business Services and the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department complete.

Sitting suspended from 10:30 to 10:45.