Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $75,551,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,879,000

Membership:

Mr Marshall substituted for Ms Sanderson.

Mr Knoll substituted for Ms Chapman.

Mr Speirs substituted for Mr Bell.

Minister:

Hon. S.E. Close, Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr K. Winter-Dewhirst, Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms E. Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

Mr P. McMahon, Chief Operating Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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

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

Ms T. Lynch, Project Officer, Briefings and Parliamentary Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr T. Ryan, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Welcome to the Minister for the Public Sector. We are looking at the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in part, $75,551,000, and Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in part, $1,879,000. I declare the proposed payments re-opened for examination and I refer members to the portfolio statements, Volume 3. I now call on the minister to make a statement if she wishes and to introduce her new advisers.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will introduce the people sitting around me. On my right is Erma Ranieri, who is the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. On my left is Kym Winter-Dewhirst, the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and on his left is Phil McMahon, who is the Chief Operating Officer. I have a brief opening statement to make about the Office for the Public Sector and Government Services Group. The government is committed to ensuring that both people and businesses thrive in South Australia. Our public sector serves this vision through establishing a strong culture of service excellence and a productive working relationship with communities and business.

We continue to strive for improvements in our public sector. We have established the Office for the Public Sector to support the work of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and implemented changes in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, focusing on removing duplication and waste.

We have implemented a number of initiatives that are helping us build a modern public sector which works efficiently and effectively and welcomes innovation. Change@SouthAustralia continues to build on its strong foundations, particularly in its 90-day projects. Over the last three years, 63 projects have been completed, including:

analysing the benefit of nurses in government schools;

developing strategies to increase Aboriginal representation in the public sector; and

improving road transport for the agricultural industry.

Many more 90-day projects have been completed by agencies working with their partners. One of the key tasks for 2014-15 was to fully review and revise the code of ethics, the code of conduct employees are expected to uphold to ensure the integrity and professionalism of our public sector. The revised code is now effective for all public sector employees. A leadership development strategy for public sector executives continues to be implemented, offering programs specifically designed for chief executives, such as Fast Start Induction for new CEs and round-table discussions facilitated by experts in the field.

Our public sector is being revitalised with the recruitment of young South Australians through our Jobs4Youth SA initiative. In its first year, 188 trainees were recruited of whom 54 are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and six with a declared disability. 76 per cent of the young people recruited are on track to complete their traineeships, and recruitment has begun for the 2015 intake.

Easing the way for people and businesses interacting with government is a key priority. Over the past six months we have delivered a number of initiatives, many harnessing digital technology, that are improving government services for citizens. One of the most significant initiatives is our open-data agenda: a commitment to unlocking data held by government agencies so it can be used by people and businesses and in classrooms. Opening up this data can create new opportunities and significant economic value by empowering citizens, supporting research and engaging developers in the creation of digital applications and improving business efficiency.

This year we hosted the national award-winning Unleashed open data competition, which attracted more than 200 competitors across South Australia with access to over 700 open data sets. The Location SA Map Viewer, which we launched recently, is an innovative online tool which provides a window to a range of government spatial data for people, business and industry.

We also launched SA Performs through sa.gov.au, providing a single online location where customers can access government performance information on everything from customer wait times at Service SA centres to the proportion of government invoices paid on time. In our accounts payable services, we continue to exceed world class benchmarks. More than 97 per cent of payments have been made within 30 days across the shared sector agencies, easing the way for business to work with government. Our efforts to smooth the way for South Australians using government services is continuing through the Service SA online program. This program will make 95 per cent of transactions available online.

Working with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, five new transactions are already online including obtaining registration certificates and bulk registration renewals. The five services are expected to bring more than 200,000 transactions online over the forward estimates. Over the next 12 months, an additional 13 transactions will become available online to South Australians, rising to 19 by 2018. We are seizing the opportunity to shape South Australia as a state where both people and business prosper. A modern, efficient and innovative public sector will play a vital role in achieving this vision.

The CHAIR: Does the leader have an opening statement?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: We head straight into questions then.

Mr MARSHALL: My question references Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 173. The total expenses for the 2014-15 year ended up quite significantly over budget, in fact, in excess of $2 million over budget. Can you explain to the committee what the reasons for that unbudgeted expenditure were?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This matter has been canvassed fairly extensively in another committee in the other place, but I can give some clarity for this committee. As part of the election commitments, the government announced that it would rationalise public sector renewal and review functions within government, and that that would save $2.9 million per annum and 15 FTEs. A two-stage strategy to achieve this commitment commenced in April 2014. Approximately $900,000 per annum was saved in the first stage through the redeployment and separation of staff, and changes to accommodation ICT, and a further one-off $400,000 was achieved in 2014-15 due to one-off recoveries for the financial year.

The remaining $1.6 million savings were not achieved within the Office for the Public Sector in 2014-15, but were managed at the departmental level for that period. However, as a result of two TVSPs and the abolition of an executive position in June 2015, further ongoing savings of approximately $400,000 have already been achieved for 2015-16. The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is now working with the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to address the residual savings target.

Mr MARSHALL: When you mentioned that there was a change in premises, was there any cost associated with this transfer to new office arrangements?

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

Mr MARSHALL: Can you explain to the committee how this overexpenditure was funded, whether it was another allocation from Treasury or in fact whether or not it was just dealt with under the DPC budget?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I indicated, it was managed within the DPC budget allocation.

Mr MARSHALL: Ms Ranieri told the Budget and Finance Committee on 9 June this year that the budget savings task for her office in 2014-15 was $2.148 million. Is that still the case? If so, how is it consistent with the 2015-16 budget of $12.2 million in expenditure, actually only $1.2 million higher than the $11 million budget for 2014-15?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that the savings are factored within the budget but that there is also an increase in one-off expenditure, which I listed at the top of page 174, such as expenditure for the establishment of government reform programs, payments associated with employee separations, variations to corporate expenditure allocated across programs and expenditure to administer the Jobs for Youth SA initiative.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there in fact an ongoing budget savings task for this year?

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

Mr MARSHALL: And what is that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the remaining $1.6 million that I mentioned in the rather longer answer to the first question relating to this matter.

Mr MARSHALL: So there is a $1.6 million savings budget from what top line? The $12.2 million or—?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The savings are represented within the budget as it is printed here. It already has that saving allocated to the area.

Mr MARSHALL: So when we look at the $12.2 million, you are currently operating at $1.6 million above the $12.2 million and so by removing the $1.6 million that is how you are going to get down to the $12.2 million?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Correct.

Mr MARSHALL: What do you plan to cut to deliver that $1.6 million cut this financial year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment advises me that she is finalising the ways in which that will be addressed. She is looking at an organisational restructure, which will result in excess positions. She is looking at the reform of the human resources management model across government and potentially introducing a cost-recovery component within the work undertaken on behalf of other agencies, but none of that is finalised at this stage.

Mr MARSHALL: What sort of cost recovery opportunities are there? What could you bill other departments for?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would rather not canvass that in detail, given that the commissioner is still contemplating those options and will work through with agencies as to what is a reasonable approach.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the value of that cost recovery in the total $1.6 million savings target?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The plans are not at that level of specificity at this stage to be able to separate out that component. It is one of the options before her as she resolves how she will meet her savings target.

Mr MARSHALL: Suffice to say that the number one issue that you suggested would deliver the $1.6 million saving was reorganisation of the staff, but when I look at the reduction in staff that is envisaged for the year, it is going from 70.1 full-time equivalents to 68.2 FTEs. That will hardly deliver a huge component of your $1.6 million, or does the 68.2 FTEs remain current or has there been some further revision of the FTE requirement within the agency post the publishing of this budget?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that the savings, as they are already factored in, are reflected in the level of FTE printed in the budget.

Mr MARSHALL: So, when you outlined your answer to the $1.6 million saving and you said 'staff reorganisation', in fact there is really no substantial staff reorganisation and that the main issue is really just cost recovery from other agencies?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The estimated result of 70 FTEs is only an estimated result. The actual for how many staff are there at present is not yet in the budget because there is the lag between the estimated result and the actual. When the figure comes down to 68 that will assist in delivering the $1.6 million saving.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, it will slightly. With regard to income, what makes up the $3.9 million fees, fines and penalties under this agency?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is primarily comprised of workers compensation and injury management.

Mr SPEIRS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 173. Clause 4.1 of the standard CEO contract states that the salary allowances, monetary benefits and non-monetary benefits are specified in schedule 2. Schedule 2 of Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst's contract makes no reference to a $35,000 per annum payment for a private motor vehicle lease and an extra two weeks annual paid leave for professional development. Can you explain that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You may wish to hold over that question for the Premier, because I am not the administrative minister for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, which is the employer of the chief executive.

Mr SPEIRS: Although the Office of the Public Sector does manage chief executive obligations and contracts, and I am aware that the commissioner has recently conducted a review of chief executive salaries across the nation, so I would put it to you that that does fall within your purview.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think there is a large distinction between the role that the commissioner plays in oversighting general policy and also managing contracts, and administrative responsibility for a department and the chief executive, and I am not going to make comment on another minister's responsibility.

Mr KNOLL: I suppose he is only sitting next to you, but that is fine. Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 173, Ms Ranieri, in evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, said that an additional or ex gratia payment was made to Mr Grant Lupton in terms of his termination over and above the normal requirements in the termination provisions of his contract. Can I ask what the amount of that additional payment was?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will ask the commissioner who made that decision or is responsible for the direct employment of staff to answer that question.

Ms RANIERI: Firstly the decision was not mine; I was acting on behalf of the emergency services minister and, in fact, in discussions with Mr Lupton who was looking for changes to his career, and was looking to get out, it was actually a discussion around career transitioning, so the payment that was made to him was an agreement for career transitioning services.

Mr KNOLL: Can we ask how much that payment was?

Ms RANIERI: I will take that on notice because I have not got the exact figure but I will certainly give that to you.

Mr KNOLL: No problems. On the same line, similarly, additional payments were made to Dr Gemmell and Mr Fred Hansen on their termination, and can we ask again what the additional amount paid was?

Ms RANIERI: I was not the commissioner at that particular time but I will certainly take that on notice and give you that information.

Mr SPEIRS: Minister, I do want to return to my previous line of questioning, given that Mr Winter-Dewhirst's contract was offered to him by letter through the commissioner. Can you explain why the additional payments that I mentioned before, being the professional development and the $35,000 for the vehicle, were not revealed in schedule 2 of Mr Winter-Dewhirst's contract?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I return to my point that chief executives are appointed by the Premier and they are appointed to a department which has a minister who is administratively responsible for that department and that is not me in the case of Mr Winter-Dewhirst.

Mr SPEIRS: You are correct; the contract is between the Premier and the individual who is the chief executive, but the offer of the contract was made by the commissioner and I do have a letter to that effect. I am wondering if there was a mistake made in the writing of that contract, given that these were not stated in schedule 2?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I can make no comment on that. I have no knowledge of the contract and I am not the contracting minister.

Mr SPEIRS: You may wish to seek advice from the commissioner on that, given that she wrote the letter which offered the contract.

The CHAIR: I am sure the minister can make up her own mind about that and I think she has answered the question.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to the same budget paper, Volume 3, page 173. The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Ms Erma Ranieri, appeared before the Budget and Finance Committee on 9 June this year and gave evidence that Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst, CEO of the department, sacked an executive within the first year of their contract only for that person to be then re-employed soon after as an executive within SAFECOM. Can we ask what the cost of that termination was? Was it between $200,000 and $300,000? Can we get an exact cost of that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, the executive to whom you are referring is not one who was employed within my area of responsibility within DPC. I make no comment about the conditions for that individual; administratively the responsibility is elsewhere.

However, as the Minister for the Public Sector, I think it is a reasonable question to ask when you see that someone has stopped working and the remainder of their contract has been paid out under the terms of the contract and then they commenced employment. Therefore, I have asked the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to do some exploratory work on ways in which that might be managed differently.

There are contracts that people have and management decisions are made about whether those contracts might conclude earlier and whether the terms of that contract require some payment. That person remains an employable person of talent and experience, presumably, and may well be offered a job elsewhere, and there is nothing to prevent them doing that. It is very different from the circumstances of accepting a TVSP.

Nonetheless, given the appearance of a legitimate question being asked about whether we could manage things better, I have asked the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to have a look at the processes that might be employed to see whether executives are able to be moved around rather than immediately have their contract terminated when their work is completed in that particular area.

Mr KNOLL: And when you say 'have a look at', does that come as a formal part of some sort of review? Do we expect there to be a directive from the commissioner across government or do you expect—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will allow her to consider—not allow her; she is the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and I do not control her in that sense, but I look forward to her contemplating what the options might be. When she is ready to discuss that with me we can talk about whether she wishes to turn that into a determination.

Mr KNOLL: Is there any time frame on that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have not set a time frame but I know that the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is a very hard and speedy worker in general.

Mr SPEIRS: This is also from Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 173. Minister Hamilton-Smith has advised the parliament that Ms Julie Barbaro, who was a ministerial adviser in his office, has been appointed as Acting Chief Executive Officer of Defence SA. What was the total salary package negotiated for Ms Barbaro?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I would urge you to direct that question to the relevant minister.

Mr KNOLL: The same budget line: the commissioner has recently issued determination 7, which states that when an employee is declared excess they must be offered a TVSP and has 12 months to find a new job which commences from that point. Is it correct that the government has received a letter from the PSA dated 12 May 2015 raising concerns that some agencies were declaring employees 'surplus to requirements' and not using the term 'excess'?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised by the commissioner that the correct terminology is, indeed, 'excess'. There may well have been a letter, and we can look back at that, but we are not aware of any particular problems with the way that determination 7 is being adopted.

Mr KNOLL: Following on from that, did Ms Kate Stephens, Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development, contact the PSA endeavouring to clarify the position to understand the issue?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It would be helpful to me if I could understand what the question is really about. Whether someone in the office phoned someone in the PSA may or may not have happened—it could have—but is there a particular issue that you are trying to raise in the context of the agency statement that I can help with?

Mr KNOLL: Obviously there is a difference between the use of the word 'excess' and the use of the word 'surplus' and that has different connotations within this environment, and the PSA potentially has issues around the difference between that terminology. We are just trying to understand whether or not those issues have been resolved.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not aware that there is a crucial distinction in the use of that terminology. I have regular meetings—actually regular meetings—with the PSA that are established a year in advance, and that has not been raised with me. I am happy to have a conversation with them to ensure that we are not on divergent paths, if that is what your concern is. However, it is not something that has been raised to my level and I would be surprised if there was anything that was not able to be fairly easily defined and worked through.

Mr MARSHALL: Just on that, minister, is there a requirement to offer a TVSP if a member of the Public Service is declared surplus?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Rather than repeating what I am being told, I will ask the commissioner to run through very briefly for you the process that is used under determination 7.

Ms RANIERI: It is probably important to take you through the process. Determination 7 is actually, by its nature, quite specific. One of the things that I wanted to highlight is that once organisational changes occur, a very important part of the process is consultation.

So, before anyone is declared excess we go through that process and people are made aware of what that actually means for them. Once that has happened, and if there is major reform, as the commissioner I have established a committee where we will hear what some of that reform is. It is only after all of those processes that someone is formally declared excess and they receive a letter. Once that has happened a TVSP is put on the table for them—only when they receive that letter declaring them.

Mr MARSHALL: So, there is a preliminary stage to the declaration of being determined excess, which would trigger, under determination 7, an automatic offer of a TVSP.

Ms RANIERI: Yes, that is right.

Mr MARSHALL: And that immediate proceeding declaration is one of: 'You are surplus and we are going to then look at your case and determine whether indeed that means that you will be offered a TVSP and be determined excess.' Is that correct?

Ms RANIERI: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: How many people have currently been determined surplus, at the moment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As at 30 June 2015, there were 39 excess employees in the public sector.

Mr MARSHALL: And surplus?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are not clear about the distinction and why both terms are being used. We use the terminology 'excess' and there are 39 employees who have been declared excess.

Mr MARSHALL: The commissioner has just outlined that there is a process that at some point a department will determine that somebody is surplus and then there would be a committee that met to determine whether they were indeed technically excess, which would then trigger, under determination 7, an automatic offer of a TVSP. So, really what I am trying to work out is how many people are sitting in that predetermination pool?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not have numbers of people from various agencies who might be in a predetermination pool. We can endeavour to bring back a response if we have that data, but what we know are the ones who have been declared excess.

Mr MARSHALL: What triggers a referral to the committee that determines whether they are excess? Is it a referral from the department chief executive?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will ask the commissioner to give you that detail.

Ms RANIERI: I am getting confused with the surplus and excess. What agencies generally do is look at the organisational changes and, in effect, positions that are no longer existing. For someone to become excess there is no longer a position.

So, we are looking at positions, not individuals. Once the positions have been identified as no longer existing it is only at that point that I get that reported to me. Then, we get to the committee and we are given an overview of the consultation that actually occurred in the agency and a table of the positions that are no longer required and what that means for the agency, but prior to that, I do not have that data; it is only once they are moving to declare them excess.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the time frame between the department identifying people and your agency declaring them?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Prior to it being in the commissioner's hands, and therefore the committee, it would vary between agencies and how they manage that process.

Mr MARSHALL: But when they come to you?

Ms RANIERI: It can vary. If all the processes in relation to the determination were met it can be very quick, they move quickly to declaring someone excess and they move on the process. If, in fact, I believe that there are elements of the determination that have not been covered—for instance, consultation or some clarity around things, and I am in constant communication with all the relevant unions in relation to any concerns they might have—I may ask for some further elaboration on what agencies are doing before they move into that next, more formal step.

Mr MARSHALL: So of the 39 public servants who were declared excess last financial year, how many have been advised to you, or you are currently considering, for determination as to whether they are excess or not?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Of the 39, 22 are managed by the Commissioner's Determination 7 and 17 are covered by the Commissioner's Guideline.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, I did not catch that. So 39 have not been declared, 39 are still being considered?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is 39 that have been declared as excess and are being managed.

Mr MARSHALL: How many are under active consideration by your agency?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Do you mean prior to—

Mr MARSHALL: Correct.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So in addition to the 39—

Mr MARSHALL: Under current consideration.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The commissioner's office is aware of only the 39. None have been brought to her attention that have not yet gone into the 39. What you are asking about are the ones who are being considered but who have not been declared; there aren't any in that category at the moment. There may well be in the agencies that they are contemplating, but they are yet to pull the trigger for the commissioner—

Mr MARSHALL: So the agency has not been advised by any department that they have excess staff that are waiting on the agency to declare them excess under Determination 7?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The commissioner is kept informed by agencies about organisational reform they are undertaking that may well almost inevitably result in declaration of some positions as excess, but there are no individual positions currently in front of the commissioner that are not yet in that 39 that have been officially declared. She is kept up-to-date in general terms.

Mr MARSHALL: Were there any rejected last year? Were there 39 applications and 39 determined excess or were there 48 presented and 39 declared?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In order to be absolutely accurate we will take that on notice, and make sure that our response is accurate.

Mr MARSHALL: Is there a budget or a forecast for the number of excess determinations to occur this financial year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A budget for managing FTE levels is not held by this agency. That would be the responsibility of each individual agency.

Mr KNOLL: On the same line, once a Determination 7 has been made and that 12 month period commences, and at the moment we have got 39 people, do those 39 people stay and work within their departments or is there a specific place they go, or is there a variety of options pursued?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They remain attached to their department.

Mr SPEIRS: Just going back to the previous terminology question around the words 'excess' and 'surplus', for the purpose of the relevant HR policies, do those words have different meanings?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not to my knowledge, but what I am going to do, having had this raised by you, is go back and seek more detailed advice to make sure that I have that level of detail and, if necessary, to provide greater clarification I will return with a response.

Mr SPEIRS: Is it possible that some chief executives are using the word 'surplus' as opposed to 'excess' in order to potentially circumvent their obligations under Determination 7?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would by no means speculate that chief executives are doing that.

Mr SPEIRS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 173. Do any current office holders in the PSA hold substantive fallback positions within the public sector?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Do any which officers, sorry?

Mr SPEIRS: Do any current office holders within the PSA hold substantive fallback positions within the public sector?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that yes, that is the case.

Mr SPEIRS: Are you able to outline what those substantive fallback positions are and in which particular departments?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not know the extent to which that is confidential personnel information, so I will take that on notice and see what is appropriate to provide. What I can provide, I will provide.

Mr SPEIRS: Has Ms Ranieri been involved in any discussions with negotiating returns to the Public Service at levels different to the substantive fallback positions in the public sector?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not sure that asking about discussions that are being undertaken by an officer is appropriate within an agency statement review.

Mr SPEIRS: Absolutely because it goes to the work and the business of the commissioner.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What is the suggestion you are making?

Mr SPEIRS: I am asking if the commissioner has had any discussions in terms of negotiating between those officers who are in the PSA who have substantive fallback positions. I am asking if the commissioner has been negotiating whether they might return to the Public Service at a different level in terms of pay from what that substantive position is.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am certainly unaware of any such discussions. A worker who is on leave without pay and contemplating returning to a position would primarily be the responsibility of the agency employing them. I have no idea which agencies we are talking about, so it is very difficult for me to give you a response.

Mr SPEIRS: Does a policy exist around such circumstances as to what would happen if someone wanted to return to a position that was different to the position that they had left in terms of the pay grade?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am just referencing my own experience of having occasionally taken time out, whether that is for having children or undertaking another job for a period of time, and the negotiation that occurs in returning because things change all the time and positions change also. I would regard that as being something that is negotiated with management within the conditions of the act and not something for which I, as the Minister for the Public Sector, have any direct responsibility for facilitating.

Mr SPEIRS: So the commissioner does not have a policy around this?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not aware and my adviser is not aware of any determination or policy that goes to what you are asking. There are practices around return to work, but we can have a look at the documentation to see whether there is anything that fits what you are asking about.

Mr KNOLL: Has Ms Ranieri recently commissioned a report on CEO salaries in SA and a comparison of those salaries with those paid in other jurisdictions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I understand that she has. I am yet to see anything as minister.

Mr KNOLL: So it is difficult for us to understand the results of that report at this stage.

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

Mr KNOLL: Was a consultant employed in the commissioning of the report and, if so, at what cost?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I am advised that there was a consultancy for some $48,000.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask which consultancy firm undertook the work?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, it was Mercer.

Mr SPEIRS: I would like to move to Sub-program 9.1: Shared Services SA in Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 169 under Description/objective. In relation to Shared Services SA's role in delivering cost-efficient corporate and business services, can the minister provide an update on the quantum of savings to be achieved through this Shared Services SA program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I can. From 2014-15, Shared Services has continued to exceed its savings targets. By 30 June 2015, the Shared Services initiative will have achieved $352 million in cumulative savings. Full details of the savings achieved can be found on page 12 of Part A of the 2013-14 Auditor-General's annual report.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 170, Targets 2015-16. The second dot point relates to the implementation and rollout of the new CHRIS 21 platform. Can I ask what the cost of implementing that rollout has been to state government agencies?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take the detail of the cost on notice as we do not have that with us, but I am happy to produce it. I will just add that the transition to the updated version is planned to begin in October of this year.

Mr KNOLL: Has that October date been consistent across that project or does that October start date involve some slippage on previous targets?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am unaware of any slippage. October has been the date we have been working to for some time and we will get final approval for that to proceed shortly.

Mr KNOLL: Obviously it is in the budget papers as something that we are going to roll out this year. Has there been an increase in the cost or a change in the cost of the implementation of the rollout over this period leading up to its commencement, or has the budget line remained the same?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that should become clear once we are able to give you the specifics of the project line, but there has been no call for extra money. We are managing it within the budget and we will provide the specifics of how much that will be.

Mr MARSHALL: I have a question regarding Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 174, and in particular workers compensation. Have any claims been made under the government's firefighter presumptive cancer compensation legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not have anything that suggests that any claims have been made, so we can look and see if our database holds anything of use, in which case I will return to you with a response.

Mr MARSHALL: Some 18 months ago, the government provided actuarial advice in the order of something like $17 million of cost per year. Are you suggesting there has not been one single claim in the past 12 months?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I simply do not have any information here. We are, of course, talking about workers compensation for public sector workers rather than WorkCover, which is run by the Attorney-General.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, although when we asked the Attorney-General the same question he said to refer the question to you, that you would know the answer.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take it on notice and we will confer between the agencies and see what we can come up with for you.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you outline to the committee what the workers compensation performance function is?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, the role of the public sector workers compensation performance function is to manage the whole-of-government data system for workers compensation claims, to conduct independent external third-party audits of agency safety and workers rehabilitation and compensation performance, to provide analysis, monitoring and publication of performance outcomes, and to drive improvements across the public sector. It should be clear it is simply about public sector workers compensation, not across all of South Australia.

Mr MARSHALL: So, in fact, who is responsible for claims made by firefighters then? Is it the Attorney-General?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It would depend on who is employing the firefighter.

Mr MARSHALL: But it is not you?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take that on notice and sort it out for you so that you have a clear answer across the agencies.

Mr MARSHALL: Who was looking after workers compensation performance before this year? Was your agency looking after it last year as well?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, the unit itself has been in existence for some time doing work on behalf of agencies. From memory, in the past, larger agencies conducted some of that themselves internally, but now these are centralised; but even now it is not fully centralised.

Mr MARSHALL: Fully centralised into your agency?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it is not quite fully centralised but it is a—

Mr MARSHALL: Does the government operate, essentially, as self-insured and so, therefore, would it be operating under the same arrangements that the legislation has envisaged, with no further payments being made after two years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The technical detail of how workers compensation is operated within the public sector I will take on notice and provide an answer to you.

Mr MARSHALL: How many public servants would you currently have who are subject to a claim where they are not at work and would be in this period of two years before their employment support ceases?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not have that information here. We will see what data we hold and can provide in response to you.

Mr SPEIRS: Minister, I take you back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 169. Has there been any discussion about moving Shared Services out of DPC and into another agency?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, I have never had that discussion; no-one has raised that option with me.

Mr SPEIRS: That is not an option on the table at the moment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is certainly not a live option that I am aware of, no.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, there has been a $4.4 million decrease in expenses due to a budget transfer reflecting the transition of ICT-related services between Shared Services SA and DPTI. Has the actual cost of this service changed between Shared Services SA and DPTI?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think the order of estimates does not help you here, because as the service has transferred from us to DPTI, you would need to ask DPTI what they are spending on it now.

Mr KNOLL: Why is DPTI no longer using ICT services from Shared Services SA?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a decision that is made by that agency. They are not the only one that presumably is big enough to think that they can run it themselves. Some agencies have decided that they are happy to stay; others have retained that service themselves.

Mr KNOLL: Are there other agencies intending to discontinue ICT support and, if so, which agencies and do we understand a timeline for that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that similar discussions are now taking place with the Attorney-General's Department, so it is possible that they will also make that decision.

Mr KNOLL: Obviously, the idea behind Shared Services in the beginning was to bring economies of scale in the public sector together to deliver cost savings. Are those cost savings undermined by different agencies then moving away from using Shared Services, and does that change the underlying cost structure on a per head basis or on a unit basis to the remaining agencies?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would just like to give further detail to the previous answer. In fact, in addition to DPC, the only agency remaining is AGD, so it looks like if they go it will just be us looking after ourselves. That is all consequent on the decision not to proceed with tranche 4. There is not a great scale that was existing that has been taken away. There was a decision made not to proceed with tranche 4.

Mr KNOLL: Just to finish off, are there any particular capabilities which exist within departments which do not exist within Shared Services and which justify the reallocation of these functions? Is there some sort of increased functionality? I am trying to understand the rationale behind why some agencies have transferred out. Is there increased functionality which the departments are going to be able to undertake, which Shared Services was unable to undertake and which may have impacted on their decision to move across?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The challenge is that there was not really a transition in the first place and then the decision was made not to proceed with tranche 4. I have been a public servant for a number of years and I know that there is always the complexity and consideration between what is best done in a centralised way and what is best done close to the individual business units, and I can understand the challenge with ICT.

You do not want to disaggregate ICT from your business. If you do not have it fully integrated, then you are not doing your business nowadays. At the same time, it is always important to at least test whether there are more efficient ways of undertaking things. These are matters of judgement, and that is the judgement that has been made.

Mr SPEIRS: Moving to sub-program 8.1: Office for Digital Government in Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 165, under highlights. Dot point 3 under highlights says that the Office for Digital Government has completed a range of cross-government ICT procurements which will deliver major cost savings to government over the next five years. Briefly, what procurements does this refer to and what are the quantifiable projected cost savings to government over the next five years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have not brought with us the detail of those ICT procurements, so I would rather take that on notice and give you a proper answer in due course.

Mr SPEIRS: Thank you, minister. Further to that, what measures are being put into place to prevent the type of cost blowouts observed in other government ICT projects?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We need to distinguish between ICT procurements that are done cross-government, which are done by this Office for Digital Government, and those which are conducted by individual agencies.

Some of the ones that you may be referring to—or all of the ones that you may be referring to—are conducted by individual agencies. In those circumstances, the Office for Digital Government offers advice and sits on the board or the committee that is steering the project, but does not control the procurement process.

Mr SPEIRS: I understand the omnibus questions have not been read in, so I regale those gathered with my accent as follows:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2014-15 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 2014-15, 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 2014-15, 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 2015-16?

4. Between 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

5. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

6. 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 2014-15, 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 grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

7. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

8. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

9. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for the financial years included in the forward estimates by year and how are these packages to be funded?

10. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2015, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: Sadly, we say goodbye and thank the Minister for the Public Sector. I thank her advisers for their time today.

I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, be adjourned to committee A.

At 14:48 the committee adjourned until Monday 27 July 2015 at 9:00.