Attorney-General's Department, $97,446,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $125,951,000

Independent Gambling Authority, $1,731,000

Membership:

Mr Pengilly substituted for Ms Sanderson.

Mr Goldsworthy substituted for Mr Knoll.

Mr Pisoni substituted for Ms Chapman.

Minister:

Hon. G. Gago, Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Business Services and Consumers.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Acting Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance, People and Performance, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr K. Della-Torre, Director, Gambling Policy, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms L. Guerin, Director, Licensing and Registration, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr R. Chappell, Director, Independent Gambling Authority.

Ms A. Barclay, Chief of Staff.

Ms G. Lewis, Ministerial Adviser.

Ms G. Hewlett, Ministerial Adviser.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and call on the minister to make a statement if she wishes.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have some brief opening comments that I would like to make. CBS has had a strong focus on the provision of online services and incorporating technologies into their processes over the past year. This stemmed from an innate sense of continuous business improvement following the merger of the former consumer affairs and liquor and gambling areas some years back.

CBS has been reviewing existing processes, and this has led to some very smart initiatives being implemented; for example, the recent change to the approval of responsible persons under liquor licensing legislation, where a person needs to only be approved once rather than for each venue they work at. This has streamlined the process and cut red tape for industry and government.

One of the most significant achievements that commenced on 1 October last year was the introduction of the late night code. The late night code is designed to encourage a culture of responsible service and consumption of alcohol to minimise the social and economic harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption and to reduce the level of alcohol-related violence that occurs in, or in the vicinity of, licensed premises. Recent figures released by the government revealed that rates of crime in the Adelaide CBD continue to fall in the nine months since the introduction of the late night code. It has been held up to be a great success.

I would also like to make brief mention of two other great achievements over the past year: first, the greater powers provided to the Liquor Licensing Commissioner, which ensures that CBS can adequately crack down on rogue licensed venues where recurring or serious alcohol or public safety issues occur, and, secondly, the introduction of the small venue licence which, in my view, has done wonders for activating the vibrancy of the Adelaide CBD. It simplifies and streamlines the process to obtain a liquor licence for entrepreneurs who want to open a licensed venue with up to a 120-person capacity and entices people to visit these unique venues in the city.

Over the past year CBS has reviewed its investigations model to increase the effectiveness of enforcement and prosecutorial outcomes. The review involved CBS engaging with South Australia Police to provide recommendations to improve the quality and consistency of investigations. Another significant example relates to the significant operation by CBS to obtain warrants and seize illegal gaming machines from residential properties. Four properties across the state were raided and five illegal machines were seized. These examples show the scale, coordination and planning that goes into a compliance operation.

In relation to consumer protection, I just want to briefly mention the South Australian free-range eggs industry code. Following consultation last year, the government announced a new regulatory industry code to prescribe clear standards commonly accepted as true free range and allow producers who choose to comply with the code to display branding that is code compliant. We are progressing that initiative.

Another initiative is the introduction of the fuel industry code. This new industry code means that only the actual price can be displayed on a petrol station’s pricing board, not the discounted price available to only those participating in a particular scheme.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the significant changes to the tenancy sector. Introduced in March this year, these reforms—led by CBS—were the result of extensive public consultation to update legislation to reflect changes that have occurred over the past 15 years. They provide a fair balance of rights and responsibilities for parties to tenancy agreements.

The reform has been complemented by the residential bonds online system, launched by CBS earlier this year. This new online system allows for paperless lodgement and management of rental bonds for tenants, landlords and agents. Again, this is another significant red-tape reduction initiative. It has been an ambitious year for CBS, and I am very proud of its many achievements.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Does anyone from the opposition have an opening statement?

Mr PISONI: I would like to go straight into questions, if I may. My first question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 59. The last dot point under Targets relates to an increase in the fee for applications to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal by 35 per cent from 1 July. What was the methodology for this increase, and what associated increases in revenue does this fee—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, I am having trouble; you are sort of mumbling. I cannot hear you. What was the last part of the question?

Mr PISONI: I am not mumbling, minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, I cannot hear you. So unless you do something about it I am not going to be able to answer your question.

Mr PISONI: Why did the government increase the fee for applications to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal by 35 per cent from 1 July?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) will be a one-stop shop for the community on a broad range of civil and administrative disputes. The tribunal will assume the decision-making or review role of an array of existing bodies, such as the specialist boards and tribunals and some courts and government bodies. In addition to traditional hearings, SACAT will have a strong emphasis on mediation and conciliation, enabling members to use a range of tools to achieve efficient and fair solutions to disputes and reviews. This will strengthen access to justice for the community by creating a single, easy to find and easy to use body with simple and consistent processes for the fair and independent resolution of disputes.

SACAT will also include the latest technology, wherever possible, with the aim of expediting the resolution of matters and improving access to justice across the community. The tribunal will be under the part direction of the presidents and deputy presidents holding concurrent offices of Supreme Court judge and District Court judge respectively.

As foreshadowed in the budget papers, the application fee for the Residential Tenancies Tribunal will be increased to contribute towards the cost of implementing these measures. Given that the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had not come into effect in 2013-14, the increase has been delayed until 2014-15, the year when the Residential Tenancies Tribunal was brought under the jurisdiction of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Obviously, full-time students, concession card holders and those able to prove hardship will be exempt from the requirement to pay a fee.

Mr PISONI: What is the total associated revenue with this fee increase? What is the expected revenue for 2014-15?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have that level of detail. I am happy to take that on notice and bring it back.

Mr PISONI: Is it based on cost recovery or is there a better return than cost recovery on that fee?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is most likely to be cost recovery, but we can double check that.

Mr PISONI: I would like to take you to Budget Paper 3, page 18, and refer to the paragraph that talks about gaming receipts. What reforms to gaming machine regulations are envisaged that will increase revenue? Your statement there claims that there will be an increase in revenue from gaming machines and I am asking you if you can inform the committee of what is changing for that to happen?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, in reference to the higher than expected gambling tax revenues in out years in the budget statement, it relates to adjustments made to the revenue forecasts to account for the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Act 2013. Then it talks about the number of measures that would have reduced problem gambling that were proposed in the bill were not accepted by the Legislative Council. This included the early introduction of precommitment and automatic risk monitoring that were obviously not able to go ahead because they were knocked off; I think it was by your party in the—

Mr PISONI: How much is the increased revenue? What is the total value?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the positive gaming tax revenue impacts are: $949,000 in 2014-15, $1.727 million in 2015-16, $5.52 million in 2016-17 and $10.359 million in 2017-18.

Mr PISONI: Can I take you now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 56, relating to licensing. An operator of a Jim's Antennas franchise has raised a concern that he was recently told by one of his long-term clients that he could not get any further work until he could provide documentation that he had a supervisor's licence. He was then told that he needs a supervisor's licence even though he works on his own and does not supervise anybody—he does not employ any staff. Is this an occupational licensing requirement or a result of new work safety and health laws, or both?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this licensing requirement has been in place for some time and is part of the occupational licensing arrangements. I am advised that he is required to have this type of licence if he is contracting with the public. It is not just a matter of having the qualifications to supervise other people's work, it is indicative of him having the qualifications and competencies needed to supervise his own work and ensure that the quality of his work meets good standards.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister.

Mr PISONI: Can I just clear this up?

The CHAIR: Very quickly.

Mr PISONI: Was it work and health and safety or was it occupational licensing requirements?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am just clarifying: it depends on the type of licence that he is seeking. I just need to put that on the record. What was the second question?

Mr PISONI: I was asking if you could clarify whether it relates to the occupational licensing requirement or whether it is a work health and safety requirement?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It depends. If it is, say, putting antennas on roofs that are very high there could be an occupational health and safety issue around working with heights, but there might be other circumstances of installing antennas that have no occupational health and safety component. So, we would need the details of the actual types of work that he was doing, or required to do.

Mr PICTON: I refer to the same budget paper, page 59. I note that the number of compulsory conciliation conferences has increased quite substantially. Can the minister inform the committee about the way these conciliation conferences are being utilised by Consumer and Business Services to resolve disputes?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is a good question. Consumers are avoiding lengthy and really costly court proceedings in disputes with traders as a result of the really successful introduction of compulsory conciliation conferences by CBS. Under fair trading legislation the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs has the power to call a compulsory conciliation conference when traders are behaving in a recalcitrant manner, or they are the subject of a high volume of complaints from consumers.

Essentially, the commissioner can force traders to the table and work through their dispute with the customer with an umpire from the CBS. When a trader and customer are not able to resolve the dispute by themselves, it can often end up in court, where the process can be extremely stressful, very time consuming and also very costly. Compulsory conciliation conferences allow CBS to bring together all the parties to a dispute, face to face, often earlier in the conflict rather than later, with the assistance of an independent conciliator as a means of resolving the dispute. It is about providing consumers with a better method of resolving disputes, particularly when the company in question seeks to avoid the customer or provide them with an inadequate response. Often they feel like they are just being fobbed off.

Traders who fail to attend the compulsory conference can be issued with an expiation fee of $315, and I am advised that to date this year nine matters have been referred for expiation. Compulsory conciliation conferences are proving to be a very effective means of a disputes resolution. As at 2 June 2014, 191 disputes had been escalated—or de-escalated, as the case might be—through this process. This accounts for approximately 14.5 per cent of total conciliation files that are received, and as a result of the compulsory conciliation process 88 per cent of these disputes have been successfully resolved.

Furthermore, 50 per cent of the disputes that have been referred to the process are actually resolved beforehand, which demonstrates that the process itself is not only effective at resolving disputes but also that calling a conference also facilitates resolution of the dispute as well.

Mr PENGILLY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Sub-program 10.1: Legislative Administration Compliance, Financial commentary, page 54. Can you provide a breakdown of the increased savings measures estimated result?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sure. CBS met the increasing savings target for 2013-14. This has amounted to $1 million, and it is currently expected to find further savings of $1.2 million in 2014-15. This will mainly be met through targeted voluntary separation packages. The savings have been met by around 14 TVSPs, a reduction in the contribution to the National Occupancy Licensing Authority, and the balance of the savings realised represent indexation and the full-year effect of the increase in savings achieved in the financial year.

Mr PENGILLY: Can you expand? You talked about 14 VSPs—is that your target? Would you hope to achieve greater than 14 VSPs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Fourteen were achieved in 2013-14, so that is done.

Mr PENGILLY: My next question is in relation to eggs, and I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Sub-program 10.1: Legislative Administration Compliance, Targets 2014-15, page 54, the first dot point. Can you advise when the industry code standard label and trademark for free-range eggs will be completed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will introduce a new regulatory standard for free-range eggs in South Australia, an industry code under the Fair Trading Act 1987. It will prescribe clear standards commonly accepted as true free range and allow those producers that choose to comply with the code to display branding that they are South Australian free-range eggs code compliant. (Try and say that quickly!) This approach by the government seeks to support true free-range egg producers in South Australia while not disadvantaging the broader industry.

Work is underway to develop a certified trademark that accredited producers can display on their product, and the government remains committed to a national solution and achieving a nationally agreed definition of free-range eggs at 1,500 hens per hectare. That has always been our position, to try to land on a nationally consistent way of dealing with this. We have had discussions at a federal level with other states over a number of years and we continue to try to achieve that.

We obviously want to do that in a way that seeks to support true free-range egg producers in South Australia while not disadvantaging the broader industry. Costs associated with certification under the industry code and use of the trademark have not yet been finalised, and the government is obviously committed to making the code and trademark cost effective to benefit producers and the broader community, and we continue with our work with industry going forward to finalise the voluntary industry code and associated trademark, including the establishment of administration and an accreditation scheme. That work is still underway and we are obviously seeking to have that completed as soon as we possibly can.

Mr PENGILLY: Just as a follow-up to that, I wouldn't trust the Australian Egg Corporation further than I could kick them, quite frankly.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Further than you could throw an egg?

Mr PENGILLY: Anything, really, no matter if it is an egg or a watermelon or a pie. However, my concern is that this is a voluntary code and the Australian Egg Corporation has chosen to do what they like, when they like, if they like, and there are good honest free-range producers who will still get burnt by the Australian Egg Corporation. I just wonder to what extent there is going to be any compliance undertaken by the government or how on earth you enforce a voluntary code when it is indeed voluntary.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have indicated, we have always believed that the best way forward for South Australian egg producers is through a national code and national regulation. We have participated in that space for some time and continue. That is the only way that we can progress this without particularly disadvantaging South Australian egg growers.

Nevertheless, I think our industry has become sick and tired of the wait and the games that have gone on in various jurisdictions over the years and said that in the meantime they would like a voluntary code. It is a code that enables the industry to make choices, so there is no cost disadvantage to anyone. You can choose to opt in. It is something about which we have had considerable dialogue in consultation with the industry. This is the way it has indicated that it would like to go in the interim and as I said, it helps to keep costs down, it helps to provide a clear label to consumers about what a real free-range egg might be.

It is interesting that we see that the supermarkets have also just gone ahead and done their own thing. We have seen Coles now just make up its own measure for free-range eggs and it is going to accept anything from 10,000. All the jurisdictions need to land on this, but there are a couple of very recalcitrant jurisdictions that just will not come to the party. South Australia has always played a very cooperative role in this and has always pursued a nationally-consistent approach and I still believe that that is really the only way forward in the long term. In the mean time, the voluntary code is a good way for consumers to have better quality information about what are free-range eggs.

Mr PENGILLY: Same budget paper, same volume, same page. Can the minister provide a breakdown of the total amount, if any, set aside to implement the industry code standard label and trademark for free-range eggs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: PIRSA was allocated some funding during the 2014-15 budget for a free-range food election commitment—around $100,000. I do not think that that is just all for eggs, though, I think that is for free-range food. As yet no funding has been allocated to CBS to monitor compliance with the industry code; however, we will do an assessment of what those costs are likely to be and hand that on to PIRSA.

Mr PENGILLY: Can I ask for that figure when you do work it out?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That will probably be next year. I look forward to next year's estimates.

Mr PENGILLY: I can hardly wait!

Mr HUGHES: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 54. Can the minister inform the committee about Consumer and Business Services' efforts to protect the community from unscrupulous traders and ensure that traders are adhering to fair trading laws?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his outstanding question. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the vigilant hardworking CBS and its specialised operatives. They are out there on a regular basis ensuring that businesses comply with their obligations but recognise the importance of educating parties on their rights and obligations under the Australian Consumer Law, resulting in measured and considered steps being taken where appropriate. South Australian consumers can purchase goods and services with the knowledge that the state's consumer watchdog is out there protecting their rights.

Mr PENGILLY: Is that it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, there is more.

Mr PENGILLY: I am sure all of us cannot wait to get back here for estimates next year.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Over the past 12 months—I will be very brief but it is important to answer your question—the CBS has done some great work in the compliance and enforcement space. CBS works hard to ensure that traders, licensees and businesses comply with the relevant legislation and codes of practice. Inspectors and investigation teams help protect consumers and keep them informed of businesses not following rules while ensuring a fair marketplace across the state.

They undertake regular visits to retailers to ensure compliance with things like where they put up 'no refund' signs and such like in relation to sales products or lay-bys which are quite wrong and quite incorrect.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No shonky business. Last year CBS cracked down on the solar installation industry following concerns from the industry. One prosecution resulting from CBS's action was against a wedding photographer who had been taking deposits from wedding parties but failed to supply the goods and services that they were contracted to do. There are so many examples and I will not list them all.

You never know where they are going to be, our CBS operatives out there in the field, checking. They also have specialised operatives responsible for product safety legislation. They do a great job in that space, ensuring products are safe and will not reasonably cause injury, particularly around show bags, kids' toys, baby products, etc., and blind cords. There is so much great work they have done in that space, and they are to be congratulated for their endless and tireless efforts.

Mr PENGILLY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Sub-program 10.1: Legislative Administration and Compliance, Targets, next financial year and this financial year, page 54, the second dot point. Given that the review of codes of practice is a requirement under section 11B of the Liquor Licensing Act, why is the statutory requirement a target in the 2014-15 budget?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Are you talking about the review being required to be done in November?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, it is a requirement under section 11B. Why is a statutory requirement a target, then, in this current budget year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In 2014-15?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes. Why have you got a target this financial year, 2014-15?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that is when the legislation requires us to do it.

Mr PENGILLY: I understand that. It refers to having a target. Why is it a target? Yes, you have to do it under the act but you have a target. Why the target? I would have thought you would have just done what you have to do. Why set a target?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just to highlight it for us. It is a bit like a summary table of all the things that are priorities for us for this year. We are required to do it so we set it as a target so it is clearly identifiable.

Mr PENGILLY: What happens if you go over the target?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not too sure what you mean by 'go over the target'.

Mr PENGILLY: I will go on to the next question. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Sub-program 10, page 54, the third dot point. How much money has been allocated to transfer consumer disputes to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised $750,000 per annum.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley has a supplementary.

Mr PISONI: There are 23 fewer FTEs in 2014-15 than there were in 2013-14 for that dispute resolution. What is the value of that reduction in FTEs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice is it is simply a matter of transferring the FTEs from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to SACAT. That is what it represents.

Mr PISONI: There are no TVSPs in those numbers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised not in those numbers, but I will seek further clarification. The breakdown, I am advised, is 15.7 FTEs are associated with the transfer of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to SACAT from 1 October and there are 6.9 FTEs as savings.

Mr PISONI: What is the value of the FTEs? Can we have a list of the salary levels?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We will seek to answer it now if we can: $3.2 million is the total expense associated with that, so if you have a calculator—

Mr PISONI: Is that an annual amount, or does that include the cost of the TVSPs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, it does not include the TVSPs. I beg your pardon, that is not the cost. We do not have the cost; I will take that on notice and I will bring it in.

Mr PENGILLY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 57, first dot point: what is the cost of conducting web-based interviews for applicants for a builder's licence in remote areas and what measures are in place to ensure that applicants have access to the internet in remote areas to participate in these interviews, given that many places do not have internet access?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that further trials are still being conducted in that area, exploring options for a web-based solution that will enable applicants located in remote regions to access a builder's licence without the need to travel to the CBS, so that work is still being undertaken.

Mr PENGILLY: I also asked: what is the budget line cost of conducting web-based interviews?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is not anticipated to have any additional increased costs. It is the cost of the staff who conduct the interview, but that is pretty much the same whether they are being conducted on—

Mr PENGILLY: But what is the cost?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I said, those trials are still being conducted and that work has not been completed, but we are not anticipating any additional costs. The cost really is the cost of the internet, and the agency already has access to that, so there are no additional internet services that have to be developed for the agency, so there is no cost there. At the consumer end, it would be the cost of their access to internet, many of whom already have it.

Mr PENGILLY: There is no budget line cost for it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, there is not, is the short answer, because it is not anticipated to have any significant costs associated with it. It is considered that it would substantially be able to be done within existing resources.

Mr PENGILLY: On the same reference, third dot point: how will the revised building licensing model reduce red tape? Will it increase the number of applications and, if so, by approximately how many?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Consumer and Business Services grants builders' licences with conditions that define the type of work a licensee can perform. Over time, licences have been personally tailored to suit an applicant's specific set of qualifications and/or experience. This has resulted in approximately 16,000 unique licence conditions being created on the CBS licensing database. The current model has resulted in some licence conditions being unclear with their scope of work difficult to interpret and define. This may inadvertently cause undesirable risk to consumers and may also lead to compliance difficulties for CBS.

The outcomes that we are seeking to achieve are reviewing licence conditions and reducing the number of conditions from approximately 16,000 to around 3,500. We intend to research and compare the models in use in the other states and jurisdictions around Australia and develop a proposal that details options for consideration, including mandatory qualifications, on-the-job experience or a combination of both.

This proposal will form the basis of consultation with industry that will align with interstate jurisdictions to achieve a greater consistency in their harmonisation and obviously there are efficiencies if these businesses are operating across borders and it is obviously efficient to administer. Research into the new model will be undertaken this financial year. When options are finalised industry will be consulted. Savings around red tape reduction impacts obviously have not been able to be analysed yet.

Mr PENGILLY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 58, second dot point. Given that sub-program 10.3 is to provide advice on alternative dispute resolution relating to consumer protection—you can see the description/objective at the top of page 58—why is fulfilling the function of the Office of Consumer and Business Services a highlight?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Was it page 58?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, page 58, second dot point.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You have lost us again there. Are you talking about the home building—

Mr PENGILLY: I will give you the question again. Given sub-program 10.3 is to provide advice on alternative dispute resolution relating to consumer protection, if you look at the description/objective at the top of page 58, why is fulfilling the function of the Office of Consumer and Business Services a highlight?

The CHAIR: Member for Finniss, can you point out where it says it is a highlight?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Which page is the highlight on?

Mr PENGILLY: It is the description/objective at the top of page 58.

The CHAIR: Yes, I can see the description/objective. Where is the highlight?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The highlights are down at the bottom of the page.

Mr PENGILLY: I will put my glasses on again.

The CHAIR: Sorry about that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is not highlighted.

The CHAIR: I cannot see that it is highlighted.

Mr PENGILLY: Okay.

The CHAIR: No, alright, in that case, we will conclude I think. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department, administered items for the Attorney-General's Department and the Independent Gambling Authority completed. Thank you, minister, and thank you to your officials.

At 16:02 the committee adjourned until Wednesday 23 July 2014 at 09:30.