Attorney-General's Department, $109,678,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $98,533,000

Independent Gambling Authority, $1,769,000

Membership:

Mr Griffiths substituted for Ms Chapman.

Mr Gardner substituted for Ms Sanderson.

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling.

Mr G. Kamencak, Deputy Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services.

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

Mr R. Chapell, Director, Independent Gambling Authority.

Mrs T. Blight, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr J. Bonnici, Attorney-General's Department.

Mrs A. Barclay, Chief of Staff.

Mrs G. Hewlett, Adviser.

The CHAIR: We are looking now at Consumer and Business Services. You are obviously appearing as the Minister for Business Services and Consumers, with your new advisers. We are looking at the Attorney-General's Department in part, $109,678,000, and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department in part, $98,533,000, and the Independent Gambling Authority, $1,769,000. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to Portfolio Statement Volume 1. I now call on you, minister, to make a statement if you wish and introduce your new advisers.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will start by introducing my advisers. On my far left, we have Rick Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department, and Andrew Swanson, Chief Director, Finance, People and Performance, AGD. On my right, we have Mr Dini Soulio, Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services. Behind me on my left we have Mr Kym Della-Torre, Director, Gambling Policy, DTF, and Mr George Kamencak, Deputy Commissioner, CBS. Behind him we have Mr Robert Chapell, and to his left we have Mr Jake Bonnici. Behind them are my advisers, with whom you are already familiar: my chief of staff Ann Barclay and ministerial adviser Gillian Hewlett.

By way of a very brief opening statement, I thank you, Chair. Consumer and Business Services (CBS) plays a vital role in improving consumer wellbeing through consumer empowerment and protection. In July last year I announced the appointment of the new South Australian Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling, Mr Dini Soulio—and I have to say he is doing a very fine job, indeed.

CBS has continued to have a strong focus on the provision of online services and incorporating technology into their processes over the past year. This has been demonstrated by the work already undertaken for introducing a web-chat service, online complaint process, web-based interviews, smart forms, and additional payment channels for customers.

CBS has progressed and delivered on some key legislative reforms over the last year, including the occupational licensing reforms, the residential tenancies reforms; however, one key legislative reform that I am very passionate about is pursuing changes to tenancy laws to strengthen the level of protection afforded to victims of domestic violence in the tenancy sector. CBS administers over 30 pieces of legislation, so it goes without saying that its compliance and enforcement activity plays a crucial role. The CBS conducts regular operations to ensure a fair marketplace is maintained throughout the state which range from travelling conmen to charity scams to raiding premises and seizing illegal gaming machines. I am now happy to take questions.

The CHAIR: You are the lead speaker, member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am, Chair.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No.

The CHAIR: Would you like to ask any questions?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Please! I confirm that I am asking questions on behalf of the Hon. Rob Lucas, shadow minister for this portfolio area. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 54 and 55 or thereabouts for most of the questions. You highlighted residential tenancies agreements in your opening statement, and it features on page 54. I want to ask you a question about a Mr Bryan Atkinson and the contact that he has had with the commissioner's office—and you, and I think me, and quite a few other members of parliament—about the Residential Parks Act 2007 and a 75-page submission that he has lodged. Mr Soulio has written back to him earlier this year but as part of that, you talked about the response, Mr Soulio, was a cursory appraisal of the act. Is there any position on a review of the act?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I did not talk about a 'cursory appraisal', I talked about planned changes to the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to making provisions and better providing for women in particular, or victims of domestic violence, who are bound by lease arrangements and enabling them to remove themselves from those lease obligations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, minister. I am reluctant to interrupt you, but my question relates to Residential Parks Act, not the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Residential Parks Act, sorry. I have been advised that the office is currently working with the Office for the Ageing to undertake an education program and, once that is completed, with a mind to review the Residential Parks Act. So, there is an intention to do that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So there is an educational program required there, I think, and whether responsibilities as a park owner and potential park resident also exist, so I appreciate the answer. If I can refer now to the financial matters as outlined on page 55 at the top under expenses, primarily. There is a $1.6 million decrease in the 13-14 actual to 14-15 estimated result. I note, though, that part of the reasoning for that is TVSPs that were delivered in 13-14. Can the minister actually provide a breakdown on the number of TVSPs undertaken and the average cost of those TVSPs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there were 15 targeted voluntary separation packages accepted in June 2014, and the cost of those—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Even if you have a total cost there, minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that most of that $1.6 million went to those 15 targeted separation packages but, if you want the exact figure, I can bring that back for you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If you would take that on notice, that would be good.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sure, I will take that on notice.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, that is at June 2014, so is there a 2014-15 cost also for TVSPs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Didn't have any, I am advised—too easy.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. As part of the reduction in staffing numbers—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Did you want the cost for that as well?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not when you do not have any.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can provide it. I have got that figure!

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am sure it has only got one number and it is a zero. What structural changes have you actually undertaken as a result of that, and what are the projections of long-term savings as a result of that restructure from TVSPs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there has been quite a comprehensive review of the way in which work is done within CBS and those processes. There has been a review of the operational model and changed methods of particularly communicating and working with consumers, so it has moved to far more online types of services. Those savings will continue to be ongoing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But there is no estimate on the dollar opportunity that it created?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Are you asking for what our savings were in relation to—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Across the forward estimates.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised the TVSPs saved around $1 million in round numbers.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, you spent $1.5 million but saved $1 million, okay. I will accept that though.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: But that is $1 million a year ongoing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay, sorry. That was not clarified as part of your initial answer. I note the full-time equivalent staffing numbers in 2013-14 had 57 as at the 2013-14 June period. Can I presume that, as you said 15 left in June 2014, they were therefore not included in that 57, or were they included in that 57?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised they would not have been included, because they would have been gone by then.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I just needed that for clarification because there is a slight increase of 3.9 full-time equivalents between that year and the following year. Thank you for that.

Mr PICTON: I have got a question in relation to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 55. My question to the minister is: can you inform the committee about the work undertaken to assist consumers to identify truly free-range eggs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This is a hot issue. There is a great deal of interest in eggs.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is my next question, actually.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There you go. We knew that. We will give him a supplementary. Consumers come to me time and time again, and they want to be able to access factual information about egg production and be able to make informed choices about their purchases. That is why we have introduced a new voluntary opt-in industry code under the Fair Trading Act. The code will prescribe a certified free-range system adopting a standard commonly accepted as true free-range.

The intention of the code and a logo that will go with it is to provide consumers with the ability to easily identify locally produced eggs which have been produced to the prescribed standard of free-range; that is, a density of less than 1,500 stock per hectare. And the logo will go on the carton.

This approach by the government seeks to support true free-range egg producers in South Australia while not disadvantaging the broader industry, because it is a voluntary opt-in system. The code does not change any existing requirements for egg producers. All egg producers will still need to meet current requirements under state and commonwealth laws and regulations regarding the management of chickens. There are biosecurity issues and animal welfare standards, and all of those things will remain in place. In relation to health issues, producers who wish to opt in and display the SA free-range egg logo will, however, need to meet a particular set of rules under the trademark that are additional to existing requirements. They include:

a maximum stocking density of 150 layer hens per hectare;

unrestricted access to outdoor areas for a minimum of eight hours per day;

outdoor areas to provide adequate shelter; and

the prohibition on induced moulting.

The free-range egg industry code allows egg producers who choose to comply with the code to apply to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs for accreditation. The government continues to work with industry to ensure an appropriate administrative enforcement system for accreditation to be in place and that the appropriate agency or body carries out any required compliance and enforcement action. The registration of the trademark is nearly finished. The next step is for the trademark and draft rules to be considered by IP Australia and the ACCC, so it is really with them at the moment.

In concluding, I also want to say that, whilst we are pursuing this code within South Australia, it should be noted that in representing the South Australian government, I have raised this issue with just about every consumer MINCO that I go to, and there really needs to be a national solution. We will proceed with the state response, but the preferred position is a nationally consistent approach for consumers to be able to make choices about real free-range eggs.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested in a couple of points on that answer. You used the words, I believe, 'if a producer chooses to use the code'. Therefore, is it voluntary or is it compulsory? You also talk about enforcement of the code, so can you just give some clarification on that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is voluntary for an egg producer to opt in to choose to use the trademark. If they use the trademark, however, they are required whilst they are using the trademark to operate incorporating a particular set of criteria. That is, they must have a laying hen density of less than 1,500 etc. If they do not, if they cannot comply with that, then they have to remove the brand mark from their cartons. There will be enforcement, and there are fines if they are caught using the trademark without upholding those standards.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just request some clarification on what the cost of the development of the code was and if it was entirely funded by your office or if there is some form of levy upon growers that partially subsidised the cost of the development of the code?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The work done so far on the code has been from within the department. For those egg producers that want to opt in to use the code there will be a small administrative fee that they will be charged.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do reflect that this has been an issue that members from both chambers have been interested in. The Hon. Tammy Franks, who is in the gallery, I notice, had an interest in it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: She is a strong campaigner and a strong supporter.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Still referring to page 55 of Volume 1 of the Agency Statements, the only dot point under the 2015-16 targets refers to conducting a review of compliance and enforcement policy including the development of a harm focused, targeted, risk-based approach to compliance and education. What has prompted that review to be undertaken?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As part of the review, the department obviously seeks to work in the most efficient way possible, to use the resources in the best possible way to ensure that we get the biggest bang for our buck and to ensure that we come down heavily on those who do not do the right thing but have the lightest touch possible for those businesses that are doing the right thing and are working within—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Supplementary to that, minister: is that in particular areas or is it across the broad spectrum of issues?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised across the board.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You must have in mind some outcomes as a result of the review: what would you like to see occur?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Do you want the outcomes that are measured or just the outcomes generally?

Mr GRIFFITHS: With respect to your deciding that the review be undertaken, obviously it is an improvement-based opportunity, but what sort of improvement opportunities or do you have an open book on it at this stage?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is ongoing improvement in work, rather than a once-off review, and that it continues to look at how we can continue to improve the way we work; how we can improve education to consumers to prevent problems from happening; how we can improve enforcement, particularly how we can respond more quickly; and perhaps how we can use warnings more effectively—again, to be heavy handed where we need to be and to have the lightest possible touch where we do not. We have appointed the new deputy commissioner, who was previously with the ACCC, and we intend to rely heavily on his extensive experience to help us to improve our systems.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In giving that answer, specifically about the target for 2015-16 and looking at the activity indicators at the very top of page 56, where it refers to the number of suspected or alleged incidents of noncompliance that were the subject of compliance action, the projection in 2014-15 was 1,500—you were slightly less than that, by 50. Projection again for 2015-16 is 1,500. Is part of this to ensure that that number decreases in time through the compliance of all people who are licensed, or is it thought that it may actually increase?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is a sort of double-edged sword, isn't it, depending on how you want to portray it? You could say that an increase in figures shows that we are even more effective in being able to identify those not doing the right thing and, if there is a drop, obviously we are going to be saying that more people are doing the right thing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You cannot win sometimes in politics, can you?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sometimes the figures just go with you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

The CHAIR: We will quickly go to the member for Giles, who has been very patient.

Mr HUGHES: At page 56, can the minister inform the committee about Consumer and Business Services efforts to protect the community from unscrupulous traders?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In 2013-14 the investigation and inspection division of Consumer and Business Services implemented a new operational business model that involves conducting regular on-site risk-based inspections and task force operations to improve compliance with fair trade and occupational licensing. This goes to the very nub of the question previously asked by the member.

Since then, this approach has proven to be extremely successful in achieving a greater level of trader compliance, including an increased awareness of their legislative obligations. In addition to this, the product safety section has continued to monitor emerging product safety issues with regard to fair trade and occupational licensing compliance in the last financial year. I am advised that CBS sent out 391 warning letters for breaches. I am further advised that compliance officers visited 992 traders and issued 965 warning letters within the 2014-15 financial year. So, you can see that the office has been very busy.

With regard to product safety inspections, I am advised that since the start of the last financial year the product safety section issued 20 warning letters and one expiation. I am further advised that product safety officers have also continued to monitor emerging product safety issues, resulting in 963 items being identified as noncompliant, and of these 963 items 501 were withdrawn, 461 amended and placed back on the shelf, and one item recalled.

CBS has also successfully prosecuted a business for supplying noncompliant baby toys. The prosecution resulted in a conviction and a penalty. CBS also used several different mediums to send out educational messages that highlight consumer protection issues and aim to inform consumers about their rights and of course their responsibilities.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to compliance. Has any action been taken with small venue licence holders?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is a liquor licencing question, is it? Liquor no longer sits with me. It has been shifted to the A-G as part of their planning and vibrant city initiatives.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will jump to page 58, description objective. Of the $5.72 million of estimated income, will the minister advise how much of this figure was comprised of fees?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will have to bring that back.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 13. The paragraph regarding gambling tax revenue states that the revenue from the source has been revised down due to a softer year-to-date growth in net gaming machine revenue from the Adelaide Casino. What advice has the minister received for the reasons for this softer growth?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there is not really a specific rationale for the decline. I am advised that the decline in poker machine activity has been right across the sector, not just the Casino. It appears that the activity or use of poker machines has dropped off, and therefore so too has the revenue generated from poker machine activity.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Morialta says 'good', and I understand that. Is there a dollar figure of the softer growth of what the reduction in revenue has been from gaming taxes?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: From what year, what period of time did you want it over?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The 2014-15 to projected 2015-16 please; and if you have that over the forward estimates, that would be fantastic.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the Casino, I have some notes here that say Adelaide Casino revenue estimates over the forward years reflect operating and taxation conditions that have applied to the Casino since mid-February 2014. As part of the new licence arrangements, the Casino will be able to operate 1,500 gaming machines.

In terms of gambling tax estimates for 2013-14, it is $20 million; and for 2014-15 it is $19 million; and for 2015-16 it is estimated that that will go up to $21 million because of some of those changes that the Casino plans to put in place.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department, in part, and administered items for the Attorney-General's Department and the Independent Gambling Authority completed. Thank you, minister, thank you to your advisers, and thank you, members of the committee.

At 16:01 the committee adjourned to Friday 24 July 2015 at 10:00.