Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $91,807,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $2,079,000

Membership:

Mr Marshall substituted for Mr van Holst Pellekaan.

Mr Speirs substituted for Mr Knoll.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Hallion, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms E. Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

Mr A. Martin, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr B. Cinnamond, Director, Public Sector Workers Compensation Performance, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms M. Sjoberg, Director, Public Sector Enterprise Bargaining, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Loulas, Manager, Financial Performance and Strategy, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Director, Finance, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms J. Ellis, Statutory Responsibility, Office for the Public Sector.

Mr M. Ganley, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Welcome to the minister, this time with her hat on as the Minister for the Public Sector. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 3. I call on the minister to make a brief statement, if she wishes. I understand we have agreed that this session (until 1.15) deals with the Public Sector Management Division, Public Sector Workforce Relations and Office of Public Employment and Review, and then the second session refers to Service SA, Shared Services and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. Is everyone happy with that arrangement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct, thank you.

The CHAIR: Minister?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would like to begin today with the big picture. Over 100,000 individuals work in the public sector. Their efforts enable South Australia to prosper and support its citizens to lead safe and meaningful lives. In the past, there has been a lot of discussion about the size of the public sector, but less time has been spent talking about what really matters. What sort of public sector do we want? And how do we best use the skills and dedication of public servants?

This government has a vision for the public sector, and it is contained in the A Modern Public Sector policy, which was released before the March election. We believe the public sector must live within its means, but it must also have a culture that values openness, responsiveness and efficiency. In the words of the Premier, the 'era of quality, modern government services has arrived'.

A Modern Public Sector builds on our strong record of public sector reform dated back to 2002. The policy contains many new and expanded initiatives to improve how the public sector works with the community, as well as between agencies. I would like to mention three initiatives to give you a sense of the scope of the activity that is transforming our public sector. The new Charter of Public Service Guarantee we are developing will ensure that every customer of government services knows the treatment and service they can expect to receive. The charter will be finalised and published later this year.

The Jobs4YouthSA program is another great initiative that will bring new talent into the public sector and provide more training places to develop the skills of our workforce. Two hundred public sector traineeships will be offered each year for people between 17 and 24 years of age. The first group of trainees has already commenced. They are located in both metropolitan Adelaide and regional locations, with 22 trainees residing in country towns and cities such as Berri, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta, Clare, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Whyalla. I am particularly pleased to report that 20 per cent are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent, with others having a defined disability and many coming from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The last project I would like to mention is the Simplify initiative. We have asked public servants and members of the community to tell us how government can operate better. Already, 700 ideas have been received. The top ideas are on their way to being implemented.

To support the delivery of its vision of the public sector and as part of its election commitments, the government established the Office for the Public Sector on 1 July 2014. The government has asked the office to create an integrated approach to building the new public sector culture. This will include: leadership development, workforce planning, cultural change, partnership building across sectors, industrial relations, workforce wellbeing and the South Australian Executive Service.

The office will benefit from the strong foundation already in place. It brings together the former office for public sector renewal, Office of Public Employment and Review and the Public Sector Workforce Relations Division. In 2013-14 alone, these offices delivered the modern public service policy, 34 90-day change projects finding solutions to complex issues within three months, public sector values that describe the behaviours and practices we expect public servants to uphold, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment's determinations and guidelines, and major work on a range of important public sector enterprise agreements.

Integral to the success of the public sector reform agenda is the use of information and communications to connect the people of South Australia with the things they need, when and where they need them. As the Minister for the Public Sector I am pleased to have the Office of the Chief Information Officer in my portfolio. Simply, ICT is everywhere and in everything. We rely upon it like never before, and it is part of our daily lives and is now part of nearly everyone's jobs.

The Office of the Chief Information Officer leads the SA government ICT strategy, known as SA Connected, which will improve government effectiveness and service delivery. We can see the benefits of this approach already as agencies work with the Office of the Chief Information Officer to undertake ICT enabled business transformation projects, such as the My Support Adviser website from the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, which connects people in need with disability service providers across South Australia.

The Office of the Chief Information Officer is also responsible for the strategic coordination of ICT procurement, which has delivered around $195 million in savings over the past seven years, with an additional $40 million estimated in 2014-15, and is also responsible for being the key service provider of government network and telephony management, cyber security and making significant across-government ICT investment decisions. It is an exciting time in ICT, and I am pleased to be responsible for working toward a government that is digital by default, as part of a state that is connected and ready for the future.

The third component of my portfolio, Government Services Group, is also responding to increasing online activity, and is focused on providing improved customer service—services like the eNotice initiative, that provides for multiple timely SMS or email reminders for vehicle owners to renew their registration. More than 50,000 people have signed up to that service, with that number growing each month.

As we know, South Australians increasingly prefer to do their business online. In Service SA, half of all financial transactions were completed online in 2013-14, and online registration and licensing payments continue to increase period on period by 11 per cent. This increase in online activity has seen fewer customers presenting at Service SA customer service centres. Service SA will continue to focus on meeting demand for online payment options. It will also be looking at the current face-to-face footprint in the metropolitan area, and will be exploring improvements to its customer service mechanisms.

In Shared Services SA there has been a focus on improving the customer experience. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted with government agencies show that customer service has improved by 11 per cent during 2013-14. In the coming year, Shared Services SA will continue to improve customer service through the implementation of a case management solution that will track phone calls and emails and enable end-to-end reporting on resolution rates. I look forward to discussing the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Government Services Group in the second section of this hearing.

My short statement today does not do justice to the reforms that are transforming the public sector. The public sector is a key asset of the state and contributes to the work of this government in keeping our commitments to the people of South Australia. Our Public Service implements the decisions made by our government to support the community, work with business and create opportunities in South Australia.

Dedicated public servants will play a crucial role in supporting component manufacturers so they can retool and find new markets when Holden closes down, and they will be there to provide assistance to our growth industries, like mining and health, for jobs for the future. While change can be challenging, the public sector continues to embrace reform in order to remain relevant to the community it serves. The government will continue to provide leadership and support to the public sector during this time of renewal. This is a budget designed to support jobs and sustain the jobs growth of the last 12 years, and is pivotal to that leadership role.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Dunstan have an opening statement?

Mr MARSHALL: No, thank you.

The CHAIR: Would you like to go straight into questions then?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, thank you. My questions relate to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, starting on page 193. I understand that Mr McCann is no longer the part-time commissioner for public sector employment and is now full time in the role of internal consultant. He is being paid at the original rate of his contract of $360,000 per year. Does the budget provide for the continued appointment of the internal consultant after his contract expires in December 2014?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At this stage it is only the six months, and he is now reporting to the Premier.

Mr MARSHALL: He reports to the Premier, so he is not in this new internal consulting role that you have been talking about?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In his new internal consulting role he reports to the Premier, not to me.

Mr MARSHALL: If we stay on that same area, was he reporting to you previously as the internal consultant or only in the other area?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: He always reported to the Premier on internal consultancies and to me as the commissioner.

Mr MARSHALL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 195, program 11: why did the minister decide not to advertise publicly for applications for the appointment of a new commissioner for public sector employment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was my judgement, and I also received advice to this effect, that advertising widely was not necessarily the best approach to find the right person to take that role. There is no requirement for me to advertise and there is no requirement for me to go through a process. The judgement I took was that I would seek advice on the best approach to the appointment from the head of DPC. I took that advice and I followed that advice.

Mr MARSHALL: You previously reported that you established a selection panel. Can you advise what date that selection panel was established?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice. I did not do the panel; the head of DPC did so. We will give you some detail on that process.

Mr MARSHALL: Did that selection panel provide advice directly to you, then?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The chief executive from DPC is the person who provided me with advice from the panel rather than a direct relationship with the panel. The advice was provided to me on 16 June.

Mr MARSHALL: It was 16 June. Who were the members of the panel?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The chair was James Hallion, as you are aware. The others were Rick Persse, the chief executive of the Attorney-General's Department, and Joslene Mazel, the chief executive of the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Mr MARSHALL: Did the minister at any stage prior to 6 May have a discussion with Ms Ranieri about the possibility of her being appointed as the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from 1 July 2014?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Did I have a conversation with Ms Ranieri about that? Is that the question?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I was the parliamentary secretary for the public sector for all of last year and so worked closely with Ms Ranieri on the change reform that was being undertaken. I cannot recall if she and I ever had a discussion about whether she would be a good person to be a future commissioner, but it is quite possible that we did. If the nature of your question is, did I offer the job to her and say that she was going to have it, then no, I did not.

Mr MARSHALL: No, that was not my question; it was just whether or not you had the discussion, but you are saying you cannot recall whether you did have a discussion or you did not have a discussion.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is perfectly conceivable that she and I did discuss that she would be a good person. She acted in the role, after all, during the time that I was parliamentary secretary.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the minister received any advice that Ms Ranieri was telling staff within DPC prior to the selection panel process that she was going to be the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from 1 July 2014?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am glad you have re-asked me that question because we were unable to conclude that discussion in the previous question time and I know that it was previously raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place. I believe when he raised the question as to whether that had occurred, he also suggested that there was a brochure that went out saying that that was going to be the case. When I heard that that question was being asked, I asked Ms Ranieri if she had stated that she was going to get the position and she said that she had not, and I also asked to see the document that was put out, and it does not contain any such reference to her being the Commissioner for the Public Sector. So in the absence of any other information, my inclination is to believe that she did not do it.

However, I would also note that she was a very strong candidate, she had acted in it previously, so it would not be unnatural for some people to think that she would be likely to be the next person. It is also the case that she was leading the review and then subsequently was appointed to running the office, and I do wonder if there has been some confusion in people's minds between those different roles with the public sector commissioner being separate to running the office, and I wonder if there has been some confusion.

Mr MARSHALL: Who commissioned KPMG to review the amalgamation of the Public Sector Workforce Relations office with the Office of Public Employment and Review?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Ms Ranieri did.

Mr MARSHALL: Was that under your authority?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was, as I understand it, below the figure required, so no.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the cost of the consultancy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that the consultancy was $22,000.

Mr MARSHALL: Was former Labor ministerial staffer Ms Rowan Roberts the KPMG employee who conducted the review for Ms Ranieri?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that Ms Rowan Roberts, who has multiple backgrounds, was one of the people who was employed.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that Ms Roberts was one of the people employed, or the person employed.

Mr MARSHALL: Has Ms Ranieri undertaken any renovations of her office?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The creation of the new Office for the Public Sector brought together the former entities of Public Sector Workforce Relations, the Office of Public Employment and Review and the Office of Public Sector Renewal. Public Sector Workforce Relations and the Office of Public Employment and Review are located at 25 Grenfell Street and Injury Management Services is located at 30 Wakefield Street.

The Office of Public Sector Renewal was located at 131 Grenfell Street. As there was existing floor space, workstations and meeting rooms on Level 5, 25 Grenfell Street, all staff except for Injury Management Services are now located on this floor. The new Commissioner for Public Sector Employment occupies one of the existing offices. No building or new works were commissioned for her.

Minor works have been undertaken for the following: converting one small meeting room into an office for an executive director by relocating an existing desk and installation of overhead shelving in this office; converting one small meeting room into an office for a director by installing a workstation; installing two workstations including mobile pedestals and two widescreen hung shelves per workstation into an open area that previously only had one workstation and patching and repainting this area; relocation and changeover of an existing ergonomically adjustable desk; and relocating sets of services. The estimated cost for this work is $13,269. There were also minor costs associated with the purchase of ICT equipment, purchase of an electronic whiteboard, signage and the relocation of staff equipment and files from one building to another.

Mr MARSHALL: Are there any other renovations to office spaces as part of that merger or is it just that one that has been outlined now?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, that is it.

Mr MARSHALL: Has Mr Elbert Brooks been retained in his position?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: On 10 April 2014, Mr Brooks was advised of the decision by the head of DPC not to offer a further term of executive employment as a result of the restructure. His contract is due to expire on 11 October this year, 2014. The new Office for the Public Sector came into effect on 1 July. Given Mr Brooks' extensive legal background, he has taken on a short-term role to assist State Records with its legislative program, including the public consultation process on the draft information privacy bill.

Section 9 of the Public Sector Act 2009 provides that an employee may be transferred to other employment within the public sector that maintains the employee's substantive remuneration or as agreed to by the employee. Discussions between the chief executive and Mr Brooks have been held regarding the transfer. Mr Brooks' transfer took effect from 14 July 2014 and will conclude on 11 October this year, coinciding with the expiry of his executive contract.

Mr MARSHALL: To confirm, there is no termination payment being made?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, his contract will end. That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: Who is going to be in charge of industrial relations advice and enterprise bargaining negotiation going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Obviously Erma Ranieri is running the office from within which that advice will come, and Ms Melanie Sjoberg, who is the Director of Public Sector Enterprise Bargaining in the Office for the Public Sector, will be the main adviser within that office.

Mr MARSHALL: Does Ms Ranieri have any background or history in industrial relations advice and enterprise bargaining negotiation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Ms Ranieri has a long and extensive career in HR and staff management. She worked at UniSA some time ago where she ran human resources and in that case worked on the enterprise bargaining agreement with SA Ambulance. I would rather not go through chapter and verse. We can give you her full CV if you would like that. She does have experience in the area and she has an extremely experienced officer in Melanie Sjoberg to support that area.

The CHAIR: The member for Napier has been very patient. The member for Napier.

Mr GEE: My reference is Volume 3, page 195. Can the minister inform the committee about the Jobs4Youth program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In February 2014, the Premier announced A Modern Public Sector policy, including the appointment of 800 young trainees over four years through Jobs4YouthSA. This is vital to renewing the SA public sector workforce and providing opportunities to young people across the state.

The Jobs4YouthSA program is coordinated by the Office for the Public Sector (OPS). Jobs for Youth SA is recruiting, training and aiming to retain 200 administrative and medical equipment sterilisation trainees across the major agencies of the public sector in the 2014-15 financial year. This government was keen to reinvigorate the existing employment opportunity program for traineeships.

Trainees are appointed pursuant to the declaration under section 65 of the Public Sector Act 2009. The government has targeted its recruitment in several ways. It has sought candidates without tertiary or previous qualifications higher than certificate III in the vocational education and training field. Candidates from low socioeconomic areas, those identifying as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, having a declared disability or being long-term unemployed (that is, over 12 months) were encouraged to apply. Trainee commencement is between March and August 2014 and I am pleased to say that, so far, trainees have been appointed in Adelaide, metropolitan and regional locations, as I said in the opening statement.

The Jobs4YouthSA program has been designed to assist the government's achievement of South Australia's Strategic Plan targets, specifically target 54, learning or earning. Jobs4YouthSA may also have a positive impact on other targets, including target 47, increasing employment, target 49, lowering unemployment and target 53, Aboriginal employees: increase the participation of Aboriginal people in the South Australian public sector, spread across all classifications and agencies, to 2 per cent by 2014 and maintain or better those levels through to 2020.

Trainees will not be additional to existing staff numbers. Instead, agencies are capitalising on natural attrition rates at the entry level, with the added benefit to the public sector of reinvigorating our workforce with younger people. There are a number of benefits under the Jobs4YouthSA program. Trainees participate in full-time, paid employment for 12 months in a public sector agency. Trainees are assigned a voluntary mentor from within the sector for the duration of their traineeship and learn from more experienced public sector employees and peers.

Their learning includes a nationally-accredited qualification at the certificate III level. The main benefit for trainees includes an ongoing entry-level role on the successful completion of their traineeship. The program is designed to maximise the number of trainees who are successful in their traineeships. This means achieving competency in certificate III qualification, performing well in their jobs and displaying the values and behaviours of the public sector.

The Jobs4YouthSA program is vital in creating job opportunities for young people in South Australia, particularly those disadvantaged in the jobs market. I am pleased to advise that the program got off to a successful start. The first trainee appointments commenced in March this year and all trainees to be appointed this year will be in place by August. As at 25 June of this year, 180 trainees had been appointed. Of those 180, 51 are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, 53 had been unemployed for longer than 12 months and five have a declared disability.

The program features a number of special elements that are designed to maximise the success of every trainee placement for both the trainee and the organisation. Every supervisor of trainees has been, or will be, provided with training on how to support trainees and how to maximise the success of the trainees under their supervision. Sessions in July and August 2014 will conclude the training.

Cultural awareness training was provided for the supervisors of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander trainees on 17 June 2014 to increase their understanding of cultural differences and the possible impacts of cultural issues on the trainee and the workplace. Trainees are allocated a mentor from within the public sector, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander trainees being matched with an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander mentor. A cultural event for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander trainees and their mentors was held on 18 June 2014, where they heard from inspirational Aboriginal speakers from the public sector and the community about succeeding in the workplace.

All trainees are attending an Induction to Government session to provide them with a broader view of the public sector. Two sessions have been completed as at 20 June 2014. Jobs4YouthSA is a well-designed program to ensure the successful placement of trainees and is the winner of the 2014 Maxima workplace diversity award.

Mr MARSHALL: My questions now relate to Budget Paper 3, starting on pages 33 and 35. On page 35, in table 2.13, we have the total number of TVSPs taken up during the 2013-14 year through to 30 April. Do you now have updated numbers as to what they would be through to 30 June?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just while we are finding the briefing, can I double-check the final date you were looking for?

Mr MARSHALL: For 30June.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For 30June just gone?

Mr MARSHALL: That is correct. What the table is providing is just an actual number up until the end of April.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I understand. The latest we have at the moment is 31 May; we have not yet got 30 June. Would you like me to take that on notice and we can provide it to you once we have got 30 June.

Mr MARSHALL: Sure, I would be happy to have the 31 May figure now and the 30 June figure when it is available.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The added complexity is we only have the four year numbers—

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —so we have got from 1 November 2010 to 31 May 2014.

Mr MARSHALL: Why? Table 2.13 is broken down year by year; it gives us a number. I could do the calculation myself, but it seems completely illogical for you to give me a four year accumulated number. This is your own reporting format. Maybe I will ask another question because that could come at any time; I am not fussed about that one.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If you could give us the page number, they will be working on that, sorry.

Mr MARSHALL: Page 35. What was the original budget number for the number of TVSPs you thought you would be providing last financial year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Part of the complexity here is that TVSPs are managed by Treasury, so we will get that information for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you got the cumulative number to the 31 May?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are going to have to seek that advice for you. I do not want to be giving figures that we might—

Mr MARSHALL: With respect, when we asked these questions to the Treasurer, which is only a few days ago, he said that I would have to direct all of these questions to you. Now we are asking you the questions and you are telling us you are going to have to get the answers from Treasury. Do one of you know how many TVSPs were provided last year and do one of you know how many were planned to be provided last year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are going to have to take that on notice. We will provide the information.

Mr MARSHALL: But just for clarity, are you suggesting that this is not your area of responsibility, that it is the Treasurer's area of responsibility or are you just saying—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My understanding is that the work is done in Treasury.

Mr SPEIRS: A supplementary on this. Referring to the table with the accumulative figures from 2010-11 to present day, we saw that there were 2,315 total separation packages handed out. Has the overall FTE total within the South Australian Public Service fallen by a number similar to that or has it grown in that time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will give you a detailed answer when someone hands it to me, but the short answer is that it has not shrunk by that size because we have been reprofiling the Public Service towards the interactions with people and away from the back office. There are now 1,392 more medical officers, which is an 89 per cent growth; 4,745 more nurses, which is a 59 per cent growth; 516 more emergency services employees, which is a 38 per cent growth; 714 more police officers, which is a 19 per cent growth; and 1,842 more teachers and school services officers, which is an 11 per cent growth. There has been overall a 4 per cent increase in the number of front-line workers and a 4 per cent decrease in back office staff.

Mr MARSHALL: Referring to page 33, table 2.10, if I am reading this correctly, the number of full-time equivalents in the Public Service as of 30 June 2013 was 81,724. There was a budgeted figure of 79,484. The budget for last financial year was to reduce the size of the Public Service by 2,240, so it was a net reduction that was planned. Am I interpreting that table correctly?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Can we have a reference for the table, please?

Mr MARSHALL: Page 33, table 2.10.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Of?

Mr MARSHALL: Budget Paper 3. We are on Budget Paper 3.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Of Volume 3.

Mr MARSHALL: Not Volume 3, Budget Paper 3.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What was the question? It seems to make sense to us.

Mr MARSHALL: It is very tempting for me to make a statement here, but I will not. In the first column of table 2.10 on page 33, we have the 2013 actual that the actual size of the Public Service as of 30 June 2013 was 81,724 full-time equivalents.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: The budget for last financial year—so the budgeted figure for the size of the Public Service as of 30 June 2014—was to reduce down to 79,484. In other words, the government had planned last year to reduce the size of the public sector by 2,240 full-time equivalents. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: And that was revised up at the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr MARSHALL: Correct. That was revised up to 81,473.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: But the original budget was to reduce the size of the Public Service by 2,240.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: In the most recent budget handed down there was an estimate that it was sitting at 81,516.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: So you achieved an estimated 208 reduction in the size of the Public Service against an original budget of 2,240. I suppose my question relates to page 30, the first dot point, where you said there was $94.1 million in employee expenses associated with an increase in TVSP costs.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: I am finding it extraordinarily difficult to reconcile how you could have an increase in TVSP payments when you have—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: And not a reduction in staff; that is your question.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, presumably you would have thought there would have been money coming back into that area because the original budget would have provided for a reduction of 2,200 staff and a certain percentage of those would have been TVSPs. In the end we ended up with a significantly higher number of TVSPs. Do not forget, this is only just to the end of April. As you have already pointed out, you do not have the figures for May or June. Can you explain to us how that occurs. The Treasurer asked us to ask you. You can thank him later.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: These are obviously centrally-held figures that cut across all of the departments, so what we need to do is work out department by department who has gone up and who has gone down. Failing my advisers here having a detailed table to hand me, I think I will have to take on notice where those increases have occurred that have offset the decreases.

Mr MARSHALL: So you are going to provide that information to us, what the original budget was, the revised budget and what the actual was, department by department? My question really relates to why the TVSP original budget was so wildly out. It just does not make any sense to me; but you are going to provide an explanation for that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The explanation for the increase in TVSP expenditure is that TVSP separations were brought forward by departments, so that ones they had planned to meet savings over several years were brought forward.

Mr MARSHALL: That would make perfect sense if we had a massive reduction in the number of people working in the Public Service, but you did not get to 10 per cent of the plan for last year yet you have provided for significantly higher TVSP payments than were originally budgeted. What was the original budget for TVSP? We only have the increased position, which was $94 million. What was the original budget for TVSP payments?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, we do not have that with us, so we will provide it to you.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. I remind the minister that nodding is inaudible.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 195. Can the minister inform the committee on the achievements of the High Performance Framework program and its deployment in government agencies?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In 2008 the Public Sector Performance Commission surveyed over 40 public sector agencies and found that practices associated with organisational performance were varied and, at times, fragmented. For example, 88 different leadership development programs operated across 33 agencies, with only eight programs shared across agencies. The survey found that there was no whole-of-government mechanism to measure, improve and monitor organisational performance or align agencies to the key priorities of government.

The High Performance Framework (HPF) was developed to fill this gap. The framework provides public sector leaders with a consistent set of criteria and tools for assessing and benchmarking their performance, and pursuing targeted improvement. The Senior Management Council committed to a schedule of implementation, with agency chief executives required to oversee triennial reviews using the framework. Responsibility for embedding the HPF rests with chief executives, and informs their performance review assessments.

In the last 12 months reviews and improvement strategies were actioned in eight SMC agencies. Since the framework was first produced, 19 reviews have been undertaken. The review process provides public sector leaders with a structured gap analysis of agency results against the HPF 'what high performance looks like' criteria. Review teams are encouraged to reflect on both their plans and key results and, where necessary, commit to improvement initiatives and change.

Effective measuring, monitoring, development and evaluation to improve performance is essential for effective organisational management, particularly in times of constrained resources. A real benefit of the HPF is that it fosters learning organisations, evaluation capability and evidence-based decision-making.

To date over 300 improvement initiatives have been identified, and strategies at the agency level are progressively being actioned to improve agency performance. Some examples of improvement initiatives being undertaken include establishing performance benchmarks to improve service delivery, strengthening links to whole-of-government directions and the development of agency headline KPIs, meeting red-tape reduction targets, increasing the use of online channels for business transactions, information exchange and service delivery. Online transactions can be up to 10 times cheaper than face-to-face transactions.

The HPF has been widely recognised as being an innovative program, and recently received a commendation at the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Sector Management. The Prime Minister's Awards are Australia's most prestigious awards, recognising the efforts of public sector management and organisations. A commitment to excellence in public sector management is essential to a modern public sector, and a modern public sector is vital to building a stronger South Australia.

The Office for the Public Sector is currently working with agencies to review the content and structure of the HPF to ensure it is more efficient, scalable, and reflective of current best practice. For example, the updated framework will support the principles of engagement found in Better Together, integrate service excellence and cultivate transformative leadership and the new public sector values. The updated framework will look to sharpen the focus of the HPF, while reducing the reporting burden of the review process. The revised HPF will be ready to pilot in the first half of 2014-15.

Mr MARSHALL: I think we will stick on the same page, so we are on Budget Paper 3, page 33, table 2.10, although the questions will not relate to them, but this is the area which talks about what the current number of full-time equivalents are and the budget for 30 June of next year. Currently, we have 81,516 full-time equivalents. As at 30 June of next year, the budget (most recently updated) is to have 80,118, so it is a 1,490 person reduction over the 12-month period. Have you done any analysis of where that 1,490 will come from by department and can you provide that to the committee?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: When you look at those two numbers, the 81,516 going down to 80,118, there will be an increase in activity growth, which I suspect is where we are going to find some of the answers to the older data, but I do not have that, from our previous questions. So, in the Department for Health, the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, SAPOL and the Department of State Development there will be an additional 525 employees. There will be savings (that means separations) that will lead to the reduction of 1,308. There are no additional reductions for election commitments. There are 168 people associated with national partnerships agreements and then there is a category called 'Other' which comprises 408 people.

Mr MARSHALL: You have said to us that you are going to, essentially, put on 525 new positions, but you are going to reduce down 1,308 existing positions. Do you know which departments they are in at this stage and do you know of a number per department? No; that is fine.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not have that information here. This is consistent with the reprofiling that I mentioned earlier, though, where we have very explicitly, over the term of this government, been moving towards the interaction with the citizens and away from the back office.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you saying you cannot provide that now, or it does not exist, by department? I am just asking the question; I am not trying to be difficult, but you put a number in this table, that you know it is going to be at 80,018, so presumably you must have come up with that number from somewhere.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not have it here but it is obtainable and therefore I will provide it.

Mr MARSHALL: With the reduction of 1,308, can you tell us what are the implications of the removal of tenure as of 1 July? What is the process that you would go through? The Premier has previously said that he would go through every opportunity before he would get to a situation of forced redundancy. Can you outline to the committee how this forced redundancy would work, if we got to that point?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right. I would also note, before I answer that part of the question, that natural attrition will also assist. So, it will not be that there will be 1,300 paid out—

Mr MARSHALL: No; believe me, I understand that one.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Of course. The government stated that from 30 June the public sector employee who has been identified as excess for longer than 12 months and during that time has been assisted to find alternative employment will be able to be separated with an appropriate financial package, having regard to applicable legislation and industrial provisions.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry; can you just read the first sentence out again? I did not quite catch the term that you are using.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A public sector employee who has been identified as excess for longer than 12 months and during that time has been assisted to find alternative employment will be able to be separated. You will no doubt be aware that for most of our employees this is a matter that is within the enterprise agreement and is currently being negotiated as part of the EB about exactly how that will be applied.

Mr MARSHALL: With the term 'excess', does that start from 1 July this year? Some people have been deemed excess for an extended period of time already. For example, if somebody was determined 'excess' three years ago and they have been redeployed, could they theoretically be made redundant immediately because they have already served out that 12-month period of being nominated as excess?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This will be the subject of negotiation through enterprise bargaining, but I would not expect that to be the case. I can inform you, in terms of how many excess employees, that there are currently only 150 out of a workforce of some 81,000, which is a net reduction of 64 per cent since June 2011.

Mr MARSHALL: So really, the no forced redundancies policy, which was eliminated by this government on 1 July, does not really come into actual effect until after the enterprise bargaining agreement is negotiated; is that correct?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you had any thoughts at this stage as to what the payouts would be for people made redundant? Will they be the same as the TVSP payments?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would rather not air that publicly.

Mr MARSHALL: Leave it to negotiation—okay. Also, will this changed position by the government require any legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not believe it will.

Mr MARSHALL: The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment puts out a review each year, and I had a question regarding that. It basically has the total number of people leaving the Public Service in a year to June 2013 as 12,650. As you pointed out in your earlier answer, there is a natural attrition, but some are just transfers to other state government departments. This identifies that, of the 12,650, 2,259 are just moving to other government departments, 4,000 are separations and for possibly 6,163 you have no indication? Why is it that you have no indication? Surely it would be a pretty critical number for us as a state to work out how many will go back into other departments versus leaving the public sector permanently.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The workforce data you are referring to, the workforce information collection, is done through a census of departments and, as you rightly state, in 2013 there were the 12,650 separations and of those 6,163 were not stated in the data we were able to collect. This is probably in large part to do with a lack of a unique employee identifier across the entire Public Service. It is actually tracking people without having one number, and other jurisdictions that have the same issue of not having a single employee number that goes with you wherever you are employed have similar data issues.

Mr MARSHALL: Do you have a plan to rectify this going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, we are working towards that.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the time frame for you being able to do that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have hopes of having that achieved within the next 12 months.

Mr MARSHALL: In an answer to a previous question from the government side, you were talking about the High Performance Framework. Can you update the committee on how much was spent on the implementation of that High Performance Framework in 2013-14?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The complexity in answering this accurately is that there is a central effort, for which I am responsible, which is two FTEs, and then, of course, most of the work is done within each agency, because they are responsible for implementing and responding to the High Performance Framework.

Mr MARSHALL: And that would vary on the size of the department? Sometimes it would be a very small amount, other departments could be very—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would imagine that absolutely to be the case. I think for some departments the work was already being undertaken as part of their normal reporting and in others they had to put in a bit of extra effort.

Mr MARSHALL: Just going back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3. On page 196, the last dot point there, under your targets for this year you say that you will be developing and implementing a new job vacancy system to facilitate a more effective and efficient recruitment process in relation to the public sector workforce. How will that system differ from the current system?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For some time the office has been working with eGovernment area in DPC to develop a replacement for the ageing job vacancy system which is known as the Notice of Vacancies. Most of the work has been done within existing resources of the commissioner's office and eGovernment. It is intended that Jobs SA will replace the Notice of Vacancies as soon as development work, testing and training are complete.

Jobs SA will provide a more contemporary web-based portal for people interested in working in the SA government. Jobs SA mirrors the existing functions of the Notice of Vacancies system in a more modern platform with some process enhancements. The system does, however, have the capacity for enhanced functionality, such as e-recruitment, in the future. Obviously, e-recruitment is where you are able to apply online and be managed through the process electronically. It would be a great advantage for a lot of the HR areas within departments to be able to manage through e-recruitment, but the functionality has not been there previously.

Mr MARSHALL: On page 194, dot point 5 talks about a variance of $300,000, higher expenditure associated with the leadership development and South Australian Executive Service induction programs. Why was there a variance? Were more people put through that course, or what was the reason for the variance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are at least two reasons for that. There may be more and we will look into it to check if there is anything further to add subsequently, but we offered a course that we had not previously offered which is a SAES refresher course, and also there was a heavier subsidy for departments to help them send people.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you also, when you provide that information, just let us know how many executives—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If there is anything more to explain it.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, if there is anything more. If not, that will suffice. How many executives went through this SAES—is that what you are calling it, SAES?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Hoe many executives went through the induction program in 2013-14 and maybe just separate out induction versus that refresher course that you referred to in your answer; and how much was expended on that SAES induction program in total and, again, just breaking it down between those two categories that you have identified between induction and refresher?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I can say that 35 SAES members completed the induction in 2013-14, but for the other breakdown of costs, I will have to take that on notice.

Mr MARSHALL: If the variance is $300,000 and there was only a total of 35, I presume the original budget was not one, and it went up by 34 people, it does seem an extraordinary variance for a course that in total only—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That was the induction. As I said, there is also the refresher that we added.

Mr MARSHALL: The refresher. If you could just provide that breakdown.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: And a greater subsidy. So between the two that may be the full answer. We will check if there is any other part to the answer that we do not have before us.

Mr MARSHALL: The dot point below that, I did not quite get what that meant: expenditure in 2013-14 associated with payments for employee separations. Is that just TVSPs?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it is.

The CHAIR: By agreement, if all parties are happy we will move onto the second section, and the minister may like to change advisers. We are now looking at Services SA, Shared Services and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I seek your indulgence. Before I introduce the people, I would like to update my answer on how quickly we will be able to do the unique identifier.

The CHAIR: Yes, minister.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Advice from the area which will actually be applying this suggests that we should have it fully implemented by the end of 2016. I was a little ambitious.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. If you could introduce your new advisers.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Hallion, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr C. Oerman, Executive Director, Government Services Group, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr A. Martin, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Damin, Director, Financial Strategy, Government Services Group, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Director, Finance, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Loulas, Manager, Financial Performance and Strategy, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr B. Morris, Chief Information Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr M. Ganley, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Are you happy to go straight into questions, minister?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Absolutely.

Mr MARSHALL: Our questions relate to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 189, which deals with the Shared Services budget line but I would not get too stressed about referring to it just at this stage. My question is really whether or not the minister can confirm that the exemption process for schools has been extended as per the communication from the Premier to the National Union of Workers prior to the election?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it has.

Mr MARSHALL: The Premier has also previously stated that there would be a significantly simplified process for seeking an exemption. Can you confirm when that will occur?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would have to refer that question to the education department. I have not been engaged in anything to change that process.

Mr MARSHALL: Even though this tender is essentially administered by Shared Services, the responsibility for changing the exemption process—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Forgive me. Allow me to be clear. I have extended the exemption as it was previously. In terms of the contractual relationship with the companies that have the main tender, I have extended that now to the end of their term, which is October next year.

Mr MARSHALL: For clarification—I am not trying to be difficult—the Premier said that the previous exemption methodology, on an individual basis, he acknowledged, was cumbersome and there was going to be a simplified process. That is not the responsibility of Shared Services: that is the responsibility of the education department?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What the exemption requires is that the value for money proposition is demonstrable. How that is administered within schools I am not clear, but I did not vary the requirement of value for money to be able to demonstrate that that was the case.

Mr MARSHALL: We will need to follow that up with the education department. If we go to Shared Services on that same page, looking at the number of employees (FTEs), what has been the level of turnover for employees in the 2013-14-year?

That might take a while, so I will ask another very simple question. When we look at that table on page 189, it basically shows a budget for last year of 807 FTEs but the actual estimated result at the time the budget came down was 873. Can you explain what the bump is from the predicted result of 807, the current predicted result for this year is 806, so virtually no movement, but why do we have an estimated 873 employees on 30 June?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The increase of 67.4 FTEs is primarily due to the reclassification of temporary contractor expenses from supplies and services to salaries and wages expenses. That accounts for 69 FTEs.

Mr MARSHALL: I did not quite understand that. Sixty-nine of the 73, or whatever the number was—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the treatment of temporary contractors, whether they are counted as FTEs or in supplies and services, and they have now been counted as FTEs for that year.

Mr MARSHALL: So the budget would also presume that you are going to therefore reduce that number?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, so if you are now interested in the subsequent decrease of 67 FTEs?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Lower FTEs attributable to savings achieved under the e-Procurement initiative with implementation of the Oracle business software is 29.15 FTEs. Lower FTEs attributable to the general efficiencies in ICT and the additional efficiency dividend savings is 13.2 FTEs. Lower FTEs attributable to the $60 million Shared Services Reform Office implementation funding is 30 FTEs; and that is partially offset by an increase of five FTEs attributable to additional funding for the Chris payroll system upgrade.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there still work that Shared Services is doing to increase the functionality of the original reform agenda?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Some examples of ways in which we are continuing that reform agenda are in payroll, where we are moving from multiple Chris 5s to one Chris 21, the rollout of Basware into the Department for Health and, also, the Common Vendor Master File, about which I have a really long brief, if you would like to know more about it.

Mr MARSHALL: Not at all, but are they the three projects that Shared Services will be working on for the year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Reform projects?

Mr MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are others. They are the most significant ones, but there are others.

Mr MARSHALL: Let's leave it at that at this stage because this is such a short session, with just 45 minutes for this entire area. If we look at the original projected savings after the implementation of Shared Services, we read that, by this point in time, we were meant to have $431 million worth of cumulative Shared Services savings. Can you update the committee on what the actual value of savings has been during this period of time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You will be aware that when we discuss the savings associated with Shared Services we include efficiencies through ICT, which was part of the initial scope. What I have for 2013—

Mr MARSHALL: Is that fair, because those initiatives were put in place before Shared Services was even envisaged?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is fair depending on whether you want to get to the figure of 60. The original scope of Shared Services included ICT and therefore the figure was 60. If we do not want to talk about ICT, then we need to let go of the 60. Either it is in or it is out, but it has to be on both sides, is my suggestion.

Mr MARSHALL: With respect, the Auditor-General does not agree with you and, in fact, if we look at his most recent report on page 20, he has 60 as being the original budgeted savings.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: And then he itemises out what were already savings allocated to ICT prior to the reform even being envisaged. He is quite specific about this and it would seem from his work that, to date, there have been pretty minimal improvements. In fact, if you look at that bottom area, we are talking about around $53 million to date. I hope you are not going to give me a significantly higher number; otherwise, I will have to query it.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The table that I was about to read from is in fact from the Auditor-General's Report, so I think we are consistent with that, that the savings achieved, budgeted for 2013-14, are 57.900 and the budget for 2014-15 will be 59.346. You can break that down into the different components, as he has done, but I think what I am saying is exactly what the Auditor-General is saying. We are closing in on what was once a target of 60. We are almost there.

Mr MARSHALL: From that table that we are probably both referring to, the Auditor-General makes it quite clear that it is less savings allocated to initiatives prior to the reforms. If you are including future ICT, the Supply SA warehouses and ICT mobile carriage, these were not things that were envisaged in the original budgeted savings that were part of the Shared Services decision. We can agree to disagree, but I am on the side of the Auditor-General.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Auditor-General accepted that the target of $60 million included the ICT savings.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you point to where he said that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: His report states:

The savings allocated to the…initiative prior to the reform activities represents those savings which were included in the initiative submitted to Cabinet…For example, a major element of these savings is ICT.

So, it is part of it. I think we are in furious agreement that these are the figures.

Mr MARSHALL: Those ICT figures that he is referring to there are not part of the Shared Services reforms.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, because a subsequent decision was made not to include ICT in that group but, nonetheless, there have been savings achieved through reform.

Ms DIGANCE: This is from Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 185. Could you inform the committee about the recent Unleashed competition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am pleased to inform the house that the South Australian government hosted its second Unleashed competition on 11-13 July 2014. The competition was coordinated by the Office of the Chief Information Officer. There were 155 competitors who took part in the competition in South Australia creating 33 projects and I was lucky enough to attend and launch that event in 2014. This competition was hosted concurrently in Adelaide and in Mount Gambier to support statewide development of our digital economy and entrepreneur communities.

Unleashed is the South Australian node of a national open data competition called GovHack and is a key activity to advance open data across South Australia. In particular, Unleashed supports the government's open data action plan and provides opportunities for business, academia, the community and entrepreneurs to collaborate, participate and use data in new and innovative ways that will enhance outcomes and benefit all South Australians.

Unleashed demonstrates the possibilities when data is made available to creative entrepreneurs, how collaboration can bring new skills to create public benefit at minimal cost to government, and how we can stimulate small digital enterprise in South Australia.

Unleashed participants creatively use data provided through the SA government's data portal, data.sa.gov.au, which now has over 480 datasets available for use by business and the community. Agencies designated an open data advocate who was responsible for encouraging and facilitating the public release of data from within their agency. In addition, there were several non-government and local council data contributors. This initiative was widely supported not only by agencies, but also by external organisations and I thank them for their participation in this exciting initiative.

Running simultaneously to Unleashed, a Machinery of Data competition, which aims to combine open data with hardware, artistic design or manufacturing, was launched on 23 May. Artists, makers and crafters have until 10 August to build and make their entry. The Machinery of Data competition is about creating machines or art that is driven by, reacts to, and is inspired by open data.

Like Unleashed, the Machinery of Data competition is also a collaborative project with the government, community and local industry. An awards night will be hosted on 17 August to showcase the Machinery of Data competition entries and announce the winners of the Unleashed and Machinery of Data competitions. Several mentoring and development prizes provided by local industry sponsors will be awarded to entrepreneurial teams, university graduates and Machinery of Data creatives to support further development of our next generation of South Australian business leaders.

The Unleashed Premier's Award 2014 will also be presented at the awards night to the entry with the most likelihood of being developed further, either for commercial application or community or government use. The award includes funding of $30,000 subject to meeting milestones from the Office of the Chief Information Officer and 20 hours from Deloitte Digital over the course of 12 months to assist in any aspects of commercialising a product, establishing a business and/or running a start-up.

Both competitions provide opportunities for state and local government, industry, the community and entrepreneurs to collaborate, participate and build on shared knowledge and connections to improve open data and entrepreneurial outcomes across South Australia. We are going to continue to unlock data initiatives because open data will provide innovative opportunities in our community and economy, empower our citizens, and improve investment decisions in our state.

Ms DIGANCE: From Volume 3 as well, can the minister inform the committee what is the government's position on cloud computing?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are presently, though the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), working on a cloud policy that will enable agencies to take advantage of cloud services and also therefore meet the challenges of an increasingly digital economy. The government agencies have made it really clear that they want some guidance in interacting with the cloud. There is a growing list of Australian and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) governments that are proactively seeking to reduce costs, increase innovation and modernise their business practices through cloud technology.

The South Australian government considers cloud computing, or ‘as-a-service’ procurement, as an extension of the government’s existing approaches to outsourced services. This is primarily driven by market offerings and alternative methods of achieving business needs.

The ICT strategy that I mentioned in my opening statement, SA Connected, sets the strategic direction for ICT within the SA government. While it sets a clear expectation for agencies to invest in services (including the cloud) rather than buy hardware and software, it does not contain specific guidance on how to make that move.

We do not have a central policy mandating the adoption, or indeed the avoidance, of cloud computing. The decision to invest through a particular ICT sourcing model, such as the cloud, rests with agency decision-makers who need to operate within the government’s existing ICT governance, investment and contractual frameworks. Given all that, the OCIO is drafting a cloud policy to assist agencies, and it will be distributed for consultation very soon.

Mr MARSHALL: Back to where we were, on page 189, of the $431.5 million of the cumulative Shared Services savings that were originally budgeted to this year, what value of savings have actually been achieved?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: $21 million. That is within Shared Services alone.

Mr MARSHALL: I will not take that answer because I know that it would be misleading. It would be wrong for me to put that up as a headline. The cumulative figure.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Cumulative—I am sorry, I thought it was the most recent. I apologise.

Mr MARSHALL: That would be a great headline.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: But an inaccurate one.

Mr MARSHALL: See how nice I am?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To save my computing, I will just read the Shared Services savings for each year and we can add them up as we go along. For 2008-09 it is $2.371 million; 2009-10 is $2.963 million; 2010-11 is $10.047 million; 2011-12 is $16.825 million; and then we reach the number that I originally gave of $20.990 million.

Mr MARSHALL: They add up to significantly less than the $431 million envisaged to this point in time. Maybe I will just ask this question: compared to the original $60 million implementation budget for Shared Services, what has been spent to this current financial year and what is due to be spent going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We finished spending implementation money last year, and there was $7.3 million unspent that was returned to Treasury. I will just run through the implementation costs with you, totalled over the years. There was the original $60 million, and then in 2010-11 there was additional funding of $8.313 million. Then implementation funding was returned in the Mid-Year Budget Review in 2012, which was $7.383 million.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, was that $7 million the return of the $8 million that was expended the previous year? In other words, the net of those two years—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Was $1 million, yes.

Mr MARSHALL: So we are up to $61 million so far.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Wakefield House appropriation was $5 million, Enterprise Bargaining Adjustment and Other was $248,000 and then e-Procurement—which was not initially part of the scope—was an additional $20,370,000. So the total then becomes $86,557,000.

Mr MARSHALL: That is the net of the part that is returned.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: And that has now finished. We are not spending any more of the implementation money.

Mr MARSHALL: The original budget was $60 million, the total was $86 million. Are you convinced that the full original scope was satisfied with that $86 million expenditure, or were there significant revisions of the original scope?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Both HR and ICT have not been fully integrated into Shared Services, but we have still achieved the same savings, just at a later time. It took us longer.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but what I am asking is that there was originally a scope which was projected to cost $60 million. You have now told us that it cost $86 million. I just want to know whether the full, original scope has been delivered. We have already established that there has been a cost overrun, but I just want to know whether the scope has actually been delivered.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The original $60 million we have now met—

Mr MARSHALL: I am not sure what you mean by 'met'. Originally there would have been a scope for the services—not dollars but services—that would be provided by Shared Services. I just want to make sure that you are convinced that if I go back and look at the original scope, and look at what functionality currently exists, that you have actually delivered it all for $86 million. I want to make sure that there is no cost blowout and scope diminution.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The variation of the scope is substantially minus HR and minus the IT, but it is plus procurement.

Mr MARSHALL: What was the part that was missing? I did not quite hear that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: HR and IT.

Mr MARSHALL: What do you mean 'HR and IT'?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In the original scope.

Mr MARSHALL: So there were modules for HR and modules for IT. It seems an odd title for an IT project, to have a module for IT. Anyway, perhaps you could provide details of the original scope that has not been met to date.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that to provide deeper details than I have given you just now we would have to take it on notice, to flesh it out appropriately. Obviously, it is significantly earlier than when I have been involved, so I will dig it out.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much. Do you have figures on how much government agencies are better off paying a fee to use Shared Services rather than performing similar functions in-house?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The savings I was reading out earlier are savings to government because we have Shared Services. However, they are returned to Treasury and not back to the agencies.

Mr MARSHALL: I understand that, but obviously the government has made a decision to centralise Shared Services, and each of the agencies pay a fee to essentially have whatever transaction they are getting done by Shared Services done. I just want to know whether there has been any evaluation of what benefit there has been by paying that additional increment rather than them doing it in-house themselves.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The number is the $57,900,000 that we have saved for government. That is the result—

Mr MARSHALL: But I am talking about on an ongoing basis; that is an historic position. Are you suggesting that you are satisfied that each agency is still getting good—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is that amount each year. That is not a cumulative figure, that is the amount.

Mr MARSHALL: I do not quite get that, but I will move on because I have got a lot to get through. On page 190, it talks about late payments since the commencement of the legislation, where the government is now legislated to pay when they pay their bills late. Can you tell us what proportion of bills are now being paid late since the introduction of the legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: By value, the total paid within 30 days, as at June 2014, is 95.41 per cent.

Mr MARSHALL: What about by volume?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is 88.79 per cent. I would say that at this stage that legislation you refer to does not include health. So, if we look at the figures that do not include health we are within the 30 days at by value 98.4 per cent and by volume 97.48 per cent for the ones that are affected by that legislation.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry; I am getting a little bit confused. You have given me two sets of figures, one includes health, so it is everything, and the other one excludes health.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: The better figures are obviously without health.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right, and because you asked about the late payments, that does not apply to health at this stage.

Mr MARSHALL: So, the legislation does not include a payment for health. Do you have late payment fees for health? Is that something that—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are engaged in rolling out Oracle to the Department for Health and once that is done then I would expect them to be included, the same as all the other departments.

Mr MARSHALL: So, health does not participate in Shared Services, they run their own incredibly efficient Oracle financial system? I just cannot help but smile when I say that. Is that correct? Is that the reason why they have been excluded from the legislation, because they are running a separate system from the rest of government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The rollout that we are currently involved with, from Shared Services, for Oracle and then Basware is going to bring them into the Shared Services environment. Health is rolling out Oracle, we are rolling out Basware. Basware is dependent upon Oracle.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you tell us how much interest the government has paid on these bills to date?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: None.

Mr MARSHALL: None?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No-one has applied yet, is what I am informed.

Mr MARSHALL: That was pretty cheap, wasn't it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Well, with 97.48 by volume and 98.04 by value, that is a pretty good result.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, not for people that are paid late, but I am not going to enter into that philosophical discussion at this point in the proceedings. Can I ask a couple of questions about the chief information officer? I will be referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 184. Just having a look at the first dot point on that page, what is the Health SA equipment from which this sub-program derives income?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the PABX.

Mr MARSHALL: How does that work?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have taken over the PABX from health, we are now running it.

Mr MARSHALL: And they pay you, but they have paid you $800,000 more than you originally envisaged?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that is because we took it on during that time.

Mr MARSHALL: So it is just the total payment. Middle of the page: why was $17.8 million expended on the Microsoft licensing arrangement as a variance? It seems like a huge variance.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Because it is now being done centrally as opposed to by individual agencies. No more money is being spent across government, but it is coming into this budget line.

Mr MARSHALL: So this is really only a transfer of responsibilities or a further centralisation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right.

Mr MARSHALL: On page 185, what ICT procurement projects was the Chief Information Officer involved with? Was he involved with EPAS, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, he was not.

Mr MARSHALL: Or RISTEC?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, not RISTEC, not EPAS from a procurement perspective, no.

Mr MARSHALL: What about the EPLIS program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, he was not.

Mr MARSHALL: And the PCHR—Patient Controlled Electronic Health Records?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, he was not.

Mr MARSHALL: Does it seem odd to you, minister, that these are by far the largest IT projects in our state? We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. It is pretty fair to say that there are plenty of question marks about each and everyone of those projects, yet the Chief Information Officer has not been consulted. Can you provide some explanation to us for that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Chief Information Officer is on the eHealth steering committee, but he is not involved in the procurements.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you provide an update on your officers involvement with the EPAS system and how that program is operating at the moment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Really EPAS is a question for the Minister for Health, but I am sure you are aware of that and have probably asked him questions about it already. The involvement of the Chief Information Officer is in the eHealth steering committee and also on the ICT Board.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the scope of his involvement then? What does he have responsibility for? We do not want to blame him unnecessarily, but it is such a problematic program, as I am sure you would be aware.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The EPAS project, as I understand it, is driven by health. The Chief Information Officer offers strategic advice through those two entities.

Mr MARSHALL: What strategic advice has he offered them?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Advice on how to leverage existing procurements and the governance regime through the ICT Board.

Mr MARSHALL: And does the Chief Information Officer support the current project being put on hold for all hospitals other than the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not at all clear—it is up to him to either support or not support that. It is a decision that has been taken, as I understand it.

Mr MARSHALL: Has he provided any strategic advice, as you referred to it, as part of his role? Has he provided any strategic advice to that board regarding that decision?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think we need to be very clear that this is a decision that is Health's to make. The Chief Information Officer is able to provide advice on governance, but it is not for him to make that decision.

Mr MARSHALL: Just governance, yes. Why is it that Shared Services has a major focus for every government department other than health? Why are they so special?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Shared Services is working with health. As I was saying before, once Oracle is in place they will be able to roll out Basware, which will be significant in bringing health into the financial system. There is an engagement with health. It is a complicated department; it is a big department. It is very geographically spread, but Shared Services is working with them.

Mr MARSHALL: But it is fair to say they have put their own financial reporting system in.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, we do already process their accounts, but we have to do them manually while we are waiting for their systems to be implemented, hence how long it can take.

Mr MARSHALL: It is fair to say, though, that their Oracle financial system was put in almost in competition to the Shared Services system.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not know whether that is the case at all. That predates my involvement, but it does not sound accurate.

Mr MARSHALL: It is current and ongoing. They still have not put it in. It is running years and years behind, by a multiple of three. We have often complained about Shared Services being over budget, but it is a fraction compared to anything health has looked at over the last decade.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I presume that is commentary, because that is the health department, so it is not a question to me.

Mr MARSHALL: I think the member for Bright has a few questions. Then I will read the omnibus questions in.

Mr SPEIRS: My question comes from Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 186, which is the Sub-program 9.2, eGovernment. What is the nature of the relationship between the eGovernment directorate and the organisation Digital Market Square?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They are a contractor for some services.

Mr SPEIRS: On that, how much of any funding has been provided to Digital Market Square to develop an online service for use by government, and what is the nature of that online service?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will have to take that on notice to provide some information to you on that.

Mr SPEIRS: I understand there is quite a substantial relationship there and funding has been provided and activity has been undergone, so I would appreciate a thorough answer to that at some point. Just another question under the same budget line, Sub-program 9.2: eGovernment. Have efforts been made to merge sub-program 1 and sub-program 2, that is the Office of the Chief Information Officer and the eGovernment directorate?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, they are separate.

Mr SPEIRS: Have you or a predecessor received advice on merging these areas during the 2013-14 financial year or future financial years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have not received that advice. I understand that it has always been kept under review about whether that might occur, but I am not aware of any advice that I have received and there are no current plans.

Mr PICTON: It is hard to say if advice has been received in future financial years.

Mr SPEIRS: Yes, predictions. Perhaps it is a suggestion from an overenthusiastic new member that that might be something the government wants to look at for cost savings. They do seem to do very similar things, but it is not my role to provide suggestions at the moment, so I will not.

The CHAIR: The leader has an omnibus of questions.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, as follows:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2013-14 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2013-14, please provide the number of public servants broken down into heads and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

3. In the financial year 2013-14, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2014-15?

4. Between 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more—(a) which has been abolished and (b) which has been created?

5. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister and, for 2013-14, provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grants and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2014, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Dunstan. There being no further questions for the minister, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the administered items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet completed. Thank you, minister, and thank you to your advisers.

Sitting suspended from 14:02 to 15:00.