Electoral Commission of South Australia, $5,228,000

Administered Items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia, $93,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $78,456,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,930,000

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Gully, Acting Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr I. Clayfield, Chief Financial Officer, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr S. Froude, Director, State Records.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volumes 2 and 3. I now call on the Attorney-General to introduce his new advisers and make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will just say a couple of things about the Electoral Commission. First of all, we find ourselves in the midst of a process, and the process is the selection of an electoral commissioner. My understanding is that a report has been made in the last little while to Mr Schwarz, who is the officer who supports the Statutory Offices Committee and, therefore, I assume that, in the not too distant future, matters will be considered by that committee. That is the first thing. The second thing is that, the electoral cycle being what it is, the Electoral Commission has very busy periods and not so busy periods, although we have a boundaries commission happening presently, which probably adds a little bit of piquancy, if that is the right word, to this year.

The other thing I think it is important to understand is that the commission is facing at the moment some new tasks because the reforms made to the Electoral Act in 2013, which dealt with disclosure of political donations, public funding, expenditure caps and various other things, are slowly beginning to come into operation. We are already at the point now where the disclosure legislation has begun to do its work, and I can say that, in conjunction with the Electoral Commissioner and others, we are continuing to finetune the regulations in this area in an attempt to make sure that no undue and perverse hardship falls upon anybody because of those things.

We are going to see, over the next 12 months, a ramping up of those activities and we are running, for the first time, into an election cycle where all of those things are in place because, you would recall, they were not in place for the 2014 election because there simply would not have been time for everything to be prepared, so the commission is going to have some new challenges between now and over the next couple of years.

The other thing is that, from a policy point of view, I think some additional electoral reform is going to have to be considered by the parliament in the not too distant future and clearly that will affect the operations of the commission in one way or another. It would be my intention, as it is my practice, to seek the advice of the acting Electoral Commissioner and his staff in relation to those matters just so I can inform parliament as to exactly what implications there might be. I know that is relatively general, but over to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Attorney, in respect of the imminent announcement of a new Electoral Commissioner to be appointed and we look forward to that. On the basis that it will be occurring in this financial year, why is there no adjustment in the FTEs from the 2015-16 year, which is at 27.4 FTEs? Is somebody going to be removed when the new Electoral Commissioner is appointed if it is not the same person but one of those who is in it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer to that question is: we do not know and I do not know, but I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Unless there is somebody already in the department or in the sense of taking that position, which there would not be then any change, one would assume then that whatever job is replaced would need to be replaced, but it appears as though that would not be the case. So either there is a new one coming in from outside, in which case there is no change in the FTE, someone else is to go; or there is somebody who is being utilised who is already in the commission, in which case their present position presumably would not be replaced, but if you could take that on notice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will. I suspect the answer will depend a little bit on the outcome of the Statutory Officers Committee deliberations which are yet to occur, but I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, but, irrelevant as to who it is, it is either of those two and it does seem curious that there is no adjustment for that. Anyway, I will await your response in respect of that. Also at page 44, which relates to the workforce, what is the total cost to date, including advertising and the assessment panel cost, to select a new Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does your department have to pay it, in the sense of, does it come out of the Electoral Commission budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand it is not in the Electoral Commission budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you pay for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I assume AGD carries it or the parliament carries it, but let me find out. I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the total cost of the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the 2015-16 year and how much is budgeted to conclude their work in the 2016-17 year? It is on page 44.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In the interest of time, I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to receive it in the next half an hour, if it is located.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the capital works at page 45, does the $0.7 million in the 2016-17 year include any projects to trial electronic voting?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Good news.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have an answer, you mean? Is that the good news, or is it going to be a good answer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is exactly the sort of good news. I am advised as follows: the budget for the Electoral Boundaries Commission in 2015-16 was allocated $570,000. The estimated result in 2015-16 is $290,000, which means there is $280,000 to go in 2016-17.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you; and the $0.7 million? Does that include any projects to trial electronic voting?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Are we on page 45?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. I am just asking—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I see: the investment program is $0.7 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. Is there anything in there to trial electronic voting?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there anything in any other budget of the Electoral Commission to trial electronic voting?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the Electoral Commission doing any preparatory work to investigate electronic voting, including examining any trials undertaken by the AEC?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think this is one that has come up previously. They are intending to implement a trial for vision-impaired people at the next election. I think that has been mentioned before. That will be absorbed. It is not going to be a subject of a separate item.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that is a separate stand-alone project which has just been identified, but in respect of electronic voting for the general public who are non-vision-impaired, is the Electoral Commission doing any preparatory work to look at that, including investigating any electronic voting trials that the AEC have done or will be doing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised not. As far as electronic voting is concerned, I think it is problematic. It raises a number of very complex issues, not least of which include fraud and security and the capacity for a check or recheck of the ballot, because the physical evidence of the intention of the voter is never actually collected. It is merely a digital collection. Once that has been corrupted it is impossible to unscramble that egg.

From my point of view anyway, and I am just speaking my own mind on this, it may be that elements of the voting system might be enhanced by some technological elements. For example, proof of identity might be assisted through some form of computerised system in due course, which may improve issues if there are fears of fraud or multiple voting or something of that nature. I can indicate to the committee that the government has no present intention of advancing electronic voting, other than the trial about which we have just spoken.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 46: public disclosure. Has any political party been prosecuted for breach of reporting under the new disclosure or public funding laws?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has any registered political party been suspended in the 2015-16 year, and if so, who?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the strategic review, at page 47: has the strategic review commenced, and in which month does it expect to publish its new strategic plan?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it has not yet commenced, but it will commence shortly and should be finished by the end of the year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has the Electoral Commission undertaken any investigation or modelling on the future of itself, and in particular if any of its services are to be sold, outsourced or wholly incorporated for future elections to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it the intention of the government to consider any outsourcing of services provided by the Electoral Commission or, indeed, outsourcing the state election to the Australian Electoral Commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 48, on interstate elections: what is the total budget to provide voting services to interstate electors in the forthcoming Northern Territory, ACT and WA elections?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, as there are only a few hundred electors involved, it is just absorbed as part of ongoing costs, and it is reciprocally dealt with by other commissions.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the election of board members, page 49, what is the total cost of conducting the election of board members for Super SA, Funds SA and Super SA Select in August 2015? Are those costs fully recovered from those agencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised Super SA, the cost of administering that was $183,000 and, pleasingly, an amount of $196,000 was recovered.

Ms CHAPMAN: Funds SA? Super SA Select? Or you do not have those figures?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is the three of them.

Ms CHAPMAN: The three total, yes. Then, at page 50, in respect of election services, has the Electoral Commission provided any election services to any unions in the 2015-16 year and, if so, whom?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that we are aware of, but we will take that on notice as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of income at page 53, what is the breakdown of the income described as 'Sales of goods and services' for $478,000 for 2016-17, and the name of the agencies or clients paying for the same?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Same item: has the Electoral Commission provided any personnel to the AEC to conduct the federal election in 2016 and, if so, what have they charged and how much have they recovered?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that some of the state Electoral Commission staff worked on polling day, but they would have been paid by the AEC and therefore that is not—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is a direct payment to them, an entitlement that they can elect if they wish to take up extra work?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why does not the state Electoral Commission make available some of its staff? I appreciate that whilst we have the Boundaries Commission running there is that job to do and the enforcement for the disclosure obligations, but there is no election happening at that time for us. Surely, that would provide very significant income to the Electoral Commission and valuable experience to staff who, of course, are experienced in any event.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer is that they need to be invited and they have not been.

Ms CHAPMAN: You have not offered?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not have any other questions on the Electoral Commission.

The CHAIR: Any other questions about the Electoral Commission? In that case, we now turn to State Records, and I call the member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: I refer to page 54. What was the cost of the free bus service to provide public access to Gepps Cross up until 30 June 2016?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will take it on notice.

Mr DULUK: And on average how many people utilised the service each week?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, when it is running, two or three.

Mr DULUK: So two or two three people per week go from the city out to Gepps Cross?

Mr FROUDE: Yes, so if nobody is taking up the service, we do not run it.

Mr DULUK: Has there been a decrease in volunteers because of the movement out to Gepps Cross for the State Records?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am advised that it has increased.

Mr DULUK: So there were fewer than three previously. Also on page 54, budget 2015-16, sales, goods and services, $623,000; actual came in at $300,000. What was the discrepancy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some questions on program 9, State Records, at pages 4 and 55, an entity which costs about $7.8 million for the provision of services. I am not entirely sure, Attorney, what was the fallout of the restructure, but my recollection is that all our archival records are now at Gepps Cross, that is, local government and state government records, and, as has been pointed out by the member for Davenport, there is a transport service now provided to allow people to access that. Are all other state government records archived there or somewhere else?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are two sites, Gepps Cross and Collinswood.

Ms CHAPMAN: And what is at Collinswood?

Mr FROUDE: There is more of our collection out there, so about 25,000 metres of records out there.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just so I am clear about this (and probably because we had a lot of correspondence over this period), there was a bit of unhappiness about what I call state historical records for the purposes of people doing their individual research and the like, and that became a logistics exercise or concern for them, but those records are all at Gepps Cross, is that correct?

Mr FROUDE: No, the facilities at Gepps Cross and Collinswood house the permanent archive of the state. So at Gepps Cross we have our high access records, which are the ones accessed mainly by the public through our Gepps Cross research centre. We do, if necessary, retrieve records from our Collinswood site to provide those access services through Gepps Cross or to our government agencies as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: So is the Collinswood repository really just on the basis that it is spread over two sites, or is it things that people do not normally want to search?

Mr FROUDE: No, it is pretty much the low access records at Collinswood.

Ms CHAPMAN: Like what?

Mr FROUDE: It would be records that are not open for access at this moment in time.

Ms CHAPMAN: So things that are being kept confidential because of some statutory protection or the like.

Mr FROUDE: Yes, that is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Cabinet documents, I assume, are there if they are less than 10 years old?

Mr FROUDE: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, what happens under the arrangement now, where the previous premier announced that there is a 10-year rule and that, as they are published, we can retrieve and view cabinet records over 10 years old? Are they then brought up to the Gepps Cross facility, or do you just leave them there and put up a list and, if somebody wants them, you bring them out?

Mr FROUDE: Generally speaking that process is handled through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and its FOI unit. If a document is required that is with us, then it is retrieved through the process through the department.

Ms CHAPMAN: I did not mean the external process to get it, I meant, where do you keep it all?

Mr FROUDE: Those records are either with us at State Records or they are still with cabinet's office or the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay, in your office though. Are they at Collinswood or have they been sent out to Gepps Cross?

Mr FROUDE: I would not know. I would have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect to the access, is there a time limit when somebody can go to view the documents that are accessible, per day? Is it only certain days of the week that you can do it now?

Mr FROUDE: Yes. We have specific open hours: we are open Tuesday to Friday, 9.30 to 4.30. We are also open every second Sunday of every month as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the provision for training suggests that there is an increase in the net cost— this is on a comparison between estimated results, page 54— due to the reduction in revenue associated with records management training. Have you had a reduction in staff?

Mr FROUDE: Yes, we have.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. Because that suggests you had 41.9, and that this year you have 42 FTEs. How does that work? Or are they all trained and you do not need to train them?

Mr FROUDE: In relation to the training aspect, the provision of that service was not cost-effective for State Records to maintain, so we have actually restructured that area, so that we are not providing that training anymore.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are they still trained but by somebody else?

Mr FROUDE: Yes, they can get training through private sector organisations.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who has to pay for that?

Mr FROUDE: The agencies pay for it.

Ms CHAPMAN: The agency?

Mr FROUDE: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Your agency?

Mr FROUDE: No, not our agency, the agencies that the staff belong to.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see, but it is not for your—anyway, it is an increase there. In relation to the material that you are recording and retaining, your job, which is not an easy one, I would have to say—I do not mean to the Attorney, this question, I meant to the head of the State Records Department. The Attorney's job is easy, especially having such an accommodating shadow attorney.

Anyway, can we go back to the work that you do do, which is an arduous task I am sure, in State Records of trying to define what you keep and what you do not keep. I appreciate there is an act which sets out a number of rules and guidelines, and some regulations, but we are in the world of emails. Can you give the committee some idea about how you process what comes into you from ministerial offices in respect to the records they have kept and sent to you for retention, as emails.

Mr FROUDE: At the moment, the retention of records is governed by disposal schedules and we have a disposal schedule in place for ministers' offices, and so those disposal schedules relate to the content of the records, not necessarily the format of the records. So whether it is a paper document or an email, for us it does not matter. What matters is the content of that email or that record and that determines how long it needs to be kept for. At this moment in time, we take paper records into our facility. We do not have the ability to take in emails, so agencies are storing those themselves.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you have any role in the scrutiny of what is kept and what is disposed of?

Mr FROUDE: We do that through the work that we put in with agencies when we actually establish those disposal schedules, and through the State Records' council process as well, who approve the schedules before they are activated.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. So once you have approved the schedules, the agency itself then sends to you some sort of hard copy and/or electronic copy of what they have in records and you can scrutinise that, to check that it is against the list, and of the material that you receive do you identify the nature of how it is retained, that is, whether it is a departmental or office record or whether it is a hard copy record or whether it is a private email record, which is of the employee? Do you do any analysis of that?

Mr FROUDE: No, we do not.

Ms CHAPMAN: You will have noted that during the year, in fact, the previous financial year, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption provided a report indicating his concern in respect to information given to him that email communications were being undertaken on private emails of employees of the government.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, I think we are straying into extraneous territory and the agreed time has expired, I am afraid, unless you have a quick question you want to put on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of that—

The CHAIR: What is the question?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just asking, in respect of that, if you are able to identify that. Have you had any emails sent to you to record of individuals rather than of their departmental record-keeping?

Mr FROUDE: Not that we are aware of, no.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just make a quick comment that we have been working through the recommendations from Mr Moss, and State Records provided my office in March of this year with a serious of responses and proposals to Mr Moss's recommendations. At the moment, I am in the process of basically asking cabinet to approve a bill to amend the State Records Act. Once I have that bill sorted, I would be seeking to discuss that publicly.

Ms CHAPMAN: To deal with that issue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All of these issues, yes.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the proposed payments to the Electoral Commission of South Australia and the administered items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia completed, and the proposed payments for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the administered items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet be adjourned until later today.

Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:45.